What city really "dominates" the south? (law, gas)

[Bobloblawslawblog]

Originally Posted by Spade

I understand that. But I think all he was saying is one place was forested just like the other place is forested and one place is mountainous just like the other place is mountainous. I don't think he had the type of mountains or the type of trees in the forest in mind.

OK. It's really not a big deal. It's just that he did say that the PNW looks like the South, and that Seattle looks like a West coast Appalachia.

I just think that this:


looks strikingly different than this:

[polo89]

Originally Posted by Nairobi

I told myself I would just let you figure out what my point was, but I'll be nice and explain it:

I'm not saying that Spanish moss and cotton fields are qualifiers, but they are the scenes associated with the quintessential, Gothic South. I'm basically saying that the landscape of Houston looks much more southern than Atlanta's.

In that case, don't you think any outside persons stereotypical classic association of what the South once, or should look like is kinda dumb? People shouldn't associate Cotton Fields and Spanish Moss with the South, anymore than palm trees and beaches, or mountains and pines, anymore than limestone cliffs, and cactus.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by Bobloblawslawblog

OK. It's really not a big deal. It's just that he did say that the PNW looks like the South, and that Seattle looks like a West coast Appalachia.

I just think that this:
Attachment 121120

looks strikingly different than this:
Attachment 121121

I meant the Southern Appalachia looks like a less dramatic PNW.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by MS Born and Bred

The South is like the Balken States dominated by each one of the following cities: Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Washington, D.C.

I know Washington, D.C. is not southern culturally but it is regionally though.

Dallas, Houston, and Miami are more international while Atlanta is more national due to Media (CNN, Weather Channel, & Tyler Perry).

Here in Mississippi, people rave about Atlanta only so I guess it depends where you live also.

The South is very unique that it is not dominated by one city compared to Los Angeles (West), Chicago (Midwest), and the Northeast (New York City).

Washington DC's region is the Mid-Atlantic, not the South. I know for by census standards it incorporates DMV in the south but it is a separate region of it's own.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed empties out like 25 miles from the PA border, and is comprised of regionally close rivers and creeks that start in NY and Pennsylvania. Not calling it northern, but saying it's just not correlated with Alabama, Mississippi, and GA. The true southeast stretches from Southern Virginia down through the Carolinas, GA, Gulf Coast States, etc.

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

So then you're really only talking about a slice of the Gulf Coast when you say "Gulf Coast" and not the entire actual coast. This is why I don't consider it one of the major divisions of the South--which is based purely on geography--and is a secondary cultural subregion.

When I hear gulf coast, I think of the cultural region of Houston to the panhandle. I don't think about Naples or Tampa. I consider it as one of the major divisions based on culture and economies.

I know there are old Gulf Coast cities; didn't I mention Mobile, New Orleans, and Galveston as among the oldest, most urban cities of the broader Southern coastal plain region, along with St. Augustine, Savannah, Charleston, and Norfolk?????

Yes you did, I didn't mean to assume anything. It's just that those cities have little in common with the eastern coast cities other than age. Just because they happen to both be on a coast makes no sense to me.

[ChazG]

Economically Houston is the most dominate.

Culturally Atlanta is the most dominate.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

Yes you did, I didn't mean to assume anything. It's just that those cities have little in common with the eastern coast cities other than age. Just because they happen to both be on a coast makes no sense to me.

You seemingly missed the entire point I was making in grouping those cities together. Remember, you asked why I called the coastal plain region the South's "first" region, and I said because this was the area of the South to develop first, largely due to a slave-based, agrarian economy. The considerations in this regard are based on both geography and similar histories, so I think grouping them together on this basis is quite justified. On a subregional level, I think it's common knowledge that there's a closer geographical and historical kinship among the Gulf Coast cities and I never denied such since that wasn't the point.

But even today, you'll hear New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah in particular grouped together sometimes (with Mobile thrown in occasionally) because their coastal locations in the Deep South, ages, largely intact historic urban fabrics, and native Black populations (Creoles in New Orleans, Gullah/Geechee in the SC/GA Lowcountry) give them similar vibes in a few key respects (now don't go off listing all of the obvious differences New Orleans has with the other two cities; I'm well aware they aren't close to being clones of each other).

[annie_himself]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

You seemingly missed the entire point I was making in grouping those cities together. Remember, you asked why I called the coastal plain region the South's "first" region, and I said because this was the area of the South to develop first, largely due to a slave-based, agrarian economy. The considerations in this regard are based on both geography and similar histories, so I think grouping them together on this basis is quite justified. On a subregional level, I think it's common knowledge that there's a closer geographical and historical kinship among the Gulf Coast cities and I never denied such since that wasn't the point.

I understand the point well. I just don't necessarily agree with the grouping itself. It makes as much sense to me as grouping New York and Mobile together, because they are both old and coastal.

But even today, you'll hear New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah in particular grouped together sometimes (with Mobile thrown in occasionally) because their coastal locations in the Deep South, ages, largely intact historic urban fabrics, and native Black populations (Creoles in New Orleans, Gullah/Geechee in the SC/GA Lowcountry) give them similar vibes in a few key respects (now don't go off listing all of the obvious differences New Orleans has with the other two cities; I'm well aware they aren't close to being clones of each other).

But as far as history goes, Savannah and Charleston couldn't be any further away from the gulf coast. And that is my point. I just can't agree with any type of geographical group of cities that have very little in common throughout their histories. The culture of both areas are much too different and a stronger bond than geography in this case.

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by annie_himself

I understand the point well. I just don't necessarily agree with the grouping itself. It makes as much sense to me as grouping New York and Mobile together, because they are both old and coastal.

But as far as history goes, Savannah and Charleston couldn't be any further away from the gulf coast. And that is my point. I just can't agree with any type of geographical group of cities that have very little in common throughout their histories. The culture of both areas are much too different and a stronger bond than geography in this case.

No, you really don't understand the point well because my statement about the coastal plain region being the South's "first region" was based on only TWO simple things: the larger geographical region in which they are located and the fact that, by and large, its cities were the first to develop in the South. It was a very general categorization to buttress a larger point. I wasn't coming up with a new Census categorization or officially sanctioned way to group those cities. You're feeling slighted because you feel as though I'm downplaying the culture and history specific to the Gulf Coast region when that had absolutely NOTHING to do with my statement. You're really making this out to be WAY more than what it is. You're almost at the point of objecting to Gulf Coast cities being considered Southern along with Atlantic Coast cities since that puts them in the same region of the country (after all, you DID say that you can't fathom Wilmington and Galveston being considered part of the same region--when they already are, the South).

Also, let's not forget that Atlantic Coast cities and Gulf Coast cities are both included in the Deep South subregion. With that in mind also, Charleston and Savannah have more in common with Mobile and New Orleans than, say, Charlotte and Atlanta. Because the South is so large, there can be an overlapping of different subregions to account for similarities shared in some respects, but not others. Since I was a biology major, I think one way of saying it is that both the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coast cities are different species within the same genus.

[sour cream]

Atlanta is the mecca of the South.