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.
So what has happened to the state that practiced legalized segregation up until 1954?
Simply put, Maryland has ultimately embraced its inherent and increasing diversity. As one of the wealthiest and most innovative states below the Mason-Dixon, it offers a bold vision of a New South.
Like many states, Maryland's electorate has become increasingly diverse in the past decade. Between 2000 and 2010, the population share for non-Hispanic whites dropped from 62.1 percent to 54.7 percent. In those same 10 years, Maryland has remained the wealthiest state in the nation in terms of household income, partly driven by a strong black middle class in Prince George's County and elsewhere.
We have been limited for too long by an unnaturally small vision of the South as a closed society, artificially constrained by a long-lingering legacy of intentionally cultivated racial division. This vision has not served the interest of black working people, the white working class population that has always lived alongside them or the waves of immigrants that continue to arrive from Mexico and Central America.
The Mason-Dixon Line still sits north of the Maryland border, but Maryland is not seceding from the South; it is demonstrating the South's future.
As I said upthread, if current trends continue in 20 years you'll see a "blue" Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas, with big Latino/Asian populations and large groups of white liberals without southern accents in the major urban areas. Something is going to have to change in terms of how the South is defined. If a New/Old South dynamic evolves, Maryland would fit far better into this future southern definition than it does into the Northeast. Hell, even arguably Delaware - I think last census it was the only state north of Virginia and east of Ohio which had a net increase in white migration.
As I said upthread, if current trends continue in 20 years you'll see a "blue" Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Texas, with big Latino/Asian populations and large groups of white liberals without southern accents in the major urban areas. Something is going to have to change in terms of how the South is defined. If a New/Old South dynamic evolves, Maryland would fit far better into this future southern definition than it does into the Northeast. Hell, even arguably Delaware - I think last census it was the only state north of Virginia and east of Ohio which had a net increase in white migration.
Yeah, but those places will never have the fast-paced lifestyle of Bowie Town Center.
The northeastern United States is where probably the majority of the high-paying careers for college-educated people are located in this country. And if it isn't the majority, then it certainly is the highest concentration. This is what actually matters to most people anyway.
Do you seriously believe the Northeast has anywhere near a majority of high-paying, white-collar jobs? A somewhat higher concentration, yes, but I think you may have some misconceptions, here. That may have been more true historically, but today white collar work is found in every corner of the country. Look at the metro areas in this ranking of top areas for white-collar positions -- it is literally all over the map:
The northeastern United States is where probably the majority of the high-paying careers for college-educated people are located in this country. And if it isn't the majority, then it certainly is the highest concentration. This is what actually matters to most people anyway.
Naturally, I'm including the Washington DC and Baltimore metro areas in this.
You seem to be very hung up on wealth, which seems to be your number one reason why you insist DC/MD is northeastern.
DC area has wealth, congrats. But it's not surprising - politicans are wealthy. People working in government tend to be wealthy. Wealth does not equal northeastern, it's just that the northeast has a pretty high concentration of wealth in its metros, probably because it is so dense and urban with few rural areas compared to other parts of the country. If the nation's capital were in the middle of the country, I'd be willing to bet it would be a wealthy metro, too. It's not necessarily about location within a region as much as it's about the fact that metros of big, important cities tend to be wealthier than more rural areas.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 08-20-2014 at 10:49 AM..
You seem to be very hung up on wealth, which seems to be your number one reason why you insist DC/MD is northeastern.
DC area has wealth, congrats. But it's not surprising - politicans are wealthy. People working in government tend to be wealthy. Wealth does not equal northeastern, it's just that the northeast has a pretty high concentration of wealth in its metros, probably because it is so dense and urban with few rural areas compared to other parts of the country. If the nation's capital were in the middle of the country, I'd be willing to bet it would be a wealthy metro, too. It's not necessarily about location within a region as much as it's about the fact that metros of big, important cities tend to be wealthier than more rural areas.
You seem to be very hung up on wealth, which seems to be your number one reason why you insist DC/MD is northeastern.
There is a nearly continuous band of concentrated wealth that includes hundreds of zip codes and suburbs stretching for more than 450 miles from Northern Virginia to the northern part of the Boston metro area. It is not just a few billionaires we're talking about here, but widespread affluence. Nowhere else in the U.S. has anything of this scale or magnitude. And yes, it hasn't escaped the notice of those of us who have been paying attention.
There is a nearly continuous band of concentrated wealth that includes hundreds of zip codes and suburbs stretching for more than 450 miles from Northern Virginia to the northern part of the Boston metro area. It is not just a few billionaires we're talking about here, but widespread affluence. Nowhere else in the U.S. has anything of this scale or magnitude. And yes, it hasn't escaped the notice of those of us who have been paying attention.
Just about everyone though would agree that parts of the Northeast which aren't in BosWash are still Northeastern. Yeah, I mean some people do argue about Western Pennsylvania and Upstate NY (which I find silly), but Vermont is nowhere near Acela service and still considered Northeastern by everyone. Maine is actually a pretty poor state, with only its southernmost tip as an exurb of Boston, but it's unquestionably Northeastern.
Since the Northeast and what Amtrak calls the "Northeast Corridor" aren't synonymous insofar as there's plenty of land area of the Northeast nowhere near the Northeast Corridor, why couldn't part of the Northeast Corridor not be in the Northeast?
to build on the above I think people are confusing the Boswash megalopolis to be synonymous with the NE
just so happens the megalopolis traverses geographic regional areas
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.
