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.
It is a very broad definition. That's the point. There isn't any one definition for the entire region. The South is the largest region in the nation. There are going to be many variables... in culture, topography, climate, geology, agriculture, and economy.
The problem with a lot of people on this site, regarding this particular subject, is that they can't seem to look past this stereotypical image of the deep South. They're stuck on that whole image of Spanish moss, cotton fields, Magnolias, sweet tea, etc, etc. Yes, that applies to a large part of the South, but it's not the entire region. Not even close. There are many variations on Southern culture, just like there are many variations on Midwestern culture, or Northeastern culture, or Western U.S. culture.
The South is not a monolithic region.
The only problem I have with the "definition of the south" is the 'southern plains'. While there are southern aspects to this area particularly southern culture, in many ways the Texas panhandle wheat farmer has as much in common with the Kansan and Nebraska wheat farmer as he does southerners further to the east.
Generally the stock answer that is given in response to this is the fact that southern mountain culture is different. However, this is a bit different in that the southern Apps are surrounded by southern culture while the plains are morphing into something different. Virtually the entire plains except for the lower half of the Texas panhandle is wheat country. As a result there is commonality among plains people north and south that doesn't exist to this extent anywhere else in the "midwest/south" dichotomy.
That being said, the distinctions between the northern and southern wheat farmer are certainly there, and the best place to see this is the Oklahoma panhandle.
The only problem I have with the "definition of the south" is the 'southern plains'. While there are southern aspects to this area particularly southern culture, in many ways the Texas panhandle wheat farmer has as much in common with the Kansan and Nebraska wheat farmer as he does southerners further to the east.
Generally the stock answer that is given in response to this is the fact that southern mountain culture is different. However, this is a bit different in that the southern Apps are surrounded by southern culture while the plains are morphing into something different. Virtually the entire plains except for the lower half of the Texas panhandle is wheat country. As a result there is commonality among plains people north and south that doesn't exist to this extent anywhere else in the "midwest/south" dichotomy.
That being said, the distinctions between the northern and southern wheat farmer are certainly there, and the best place to see this is the Oklahoma panhandle.
Agreed. The only real point I was driving at is that areas like Western OK and the Texas panhandle are at the Western edge of the South. Very different from the coastal South, Appalachian South, or Ozark-South... but still part of the region. In any region there will be "transitional" distortions at their far edges.
In some ways the entire Great Plains part of America could almost qualify as it's own region, though it isn't officially recognized as such and it divides states. There really isn't much difference between the Oklahoma panhandle and Eastern Colorado, or between the Texas panhandle and far-Eastern New Mexico. It's a tricky area to sum up.
=UKWildcat1981;38066016]Jay Jay thats why I view OK and TX as the SouthWest and not the South. Texas stretches from Mexico border near El Paso to Louisiana and Arkansas border but you could argue some of East Texas is Southern but Texas is def its own region of the country.
I don't know of any native Texan who would argue that point (not if s/he wants to avoid swinging from a rope! LOL).
But seriously, if placed into a region, Texas properly belongs in the South. That is to say, it has much more in common historically and culturally -- and all that implies -- with the southeastern states -- mountain and deep -- than it does the interior southwest states.
Topography not withstanding -- and even then it gets a little scratchy in some ways -- New Mexico and Arizona did not influence the formation and development of Texas at all; in fact, it was Texas that made an impact on a small part of eastern New Mexico.
There are anomalies of course (i.e. the upper-panhandle has much in common with the Plains Midwest, and the trans-pecos region is very akin to the desert SW in most things, etc), but the key indicator of which region a state belongs with is just which other states influenced it the most and played a central role in its development. In Texas it was overwhelmingly pioneers (and their descendants) from the other former Confederate states who settled Texas and brought their dialect, politics, attitudes, etc. with them. This is true even in West Texas (at least most of it).
A lot of that SW stuff stems from the old Hollywood westerns which depicts the state as a vast desert full of cactus and tumbleweeds (they were actually filmed in Arizona and southern California). Also the -- whether intentional or contrived -- to blend the "definition" of the "Southwest" into a coherent region which did not really exist, except superficially.
That is, New Mexico and Arizona with Texas (and to a lesser extent, Oklahoma) as the "Southwest" in a singular region simply because they all considered themselves "Southwest." But what is ignored (or simply overlooked) is that Texas was the "Old Southwest"; the one of the 19th Century when it literally meant the western part of the South itself. A sorta first cousin of the southeast.
On the other hand, nothing about NM and AZ was "Southern" in any sort of meaningful way at all. I know full well I over use this phrase, but we are really talking about the western South and the southern West. About all indices bear this out...including regional self-identification.
With all that said though, I understand your point of view and why you believe what you do, even if we disagree!
Oklahoma, obviously, in the main, is much more Southern than Missouri when comparing the states as two distinct units. Missouri, from border to border (North to South and East to West) is not Southern enough to be included in the Greater South as once one gets to St. Louis, he is firmly in the lower Midwest.
However, the southern quarter of Missouri and Bootheel feel much like Arkansas to me. The Southern culture/feel of southern Missouri is undeniable in my opinion.
Oklahoma is just a rowdier/Rednecky (and proud!) derivative/version of the South. Outside of the larger populated areas the Southern culture is quite overt.
I don't know of any native Texan who would argue that point (not if s/he wants to avoid swinging from a rope! LOL).
But seriously, if placed into a region, Texas properly belongs in the South. That is to say, it has much more in common historically and culturally -- and all that implies -- with the southeastern states -- mountain and deep -- than it does the interior southwest states.
Topography not withstanding -- and even then it gets a little scratchy in some ways -- New Mexico and Arizona did not influence the formation and development of Texas at all; in fact, it was Texas that made an impact on a small part of eastern New Mexico.
There are anomalies of course (i.e. the upper-panhandle has much in common with the Plains Midwest, and the trans-pecos region is very akin to the desert SW in most things, etc), but the key indicator of which region a state belongs with is just which other states influenced it the most and played a central role in its development. In Texas it was overwhelmingly pioneers (and their descendants) from the other former Confederate states who settled Texas and brought their dialect, politics, attitudes, etc. with them. This is true even in West Texas (at least most of it).
A lot of that SW stuff stems from the old Hollywood westerns which depicts the state as a vast desert full of cactus and tumbleweeds (they were actually filmed in Arizona and southern California). Also the -- whether intentional or contrived -- to blend the "definition" of the "Southwest" into a coherent region which did not really exist, except superficially.
That is, New Mexico and Arizona with Texas (and to a lesser extent, Oklahoma) as the "Southwest" in a singular region simply because they all considered themselves "Southwest." But what is ignored (or simply overlooked) is that Texas was the "Old Southwest"; the one of the 19th Century when it literally meant the western part of the South itself. A sorta first cousin of the southeast.
On the other hand, nothing about NM and AZ was "Southern" in any sort of meaningful way at all. I know full well I over use this phrase, but we are really talking about the western South and the southern West. About all indices bear this out...including regional self-identification.
With all that said though, I understand your point of view and why you believe what you do, even if we disagree!
Right on all accounts, Ol' Buddy!
Hey, I know you love Catfish like me.....next time you're on The Better Side of the Red River you need to try BG's Catfish in Kingston (Texoma area). It's REALLY good! Fresh cut fries and homemade ice cream too.
I'll go ahead and sum this up as far as Missouri is concerned: St. Louis and Kansas City hold the majority of Missouri's population and those two cities are 100% Midwestern therefore the state is for the most part, Midwestern. So the Census Bureau is correct on this one.
Why is Missouri always dragged into this Southern nonsense anyways? Sure parts of Southern Mo have quite a bit of Southern influence but, the same goes for Southern Illinois. Where are the "Which is more southern.....Illinois or Texas" threads?? Why is it so easy to try and label Missouri a southern state but, people can't even fathom Illinois being considered one? Illinois almost reaches as far south as Missouri for petes sake.
I'll go ahead and sum this up as far as Missouri is concerned: St. Louis and Kansas City hold the majority of Missouri's population and those two cities are 100% Midwestern therefore the state is for the most part, Midwestern. So the Census Bureau is correct on this one.
Why is Missouri always dragged into this Southern nonsense anyways? Sure parts of Southern Mo have quite a bit of Southern influence but, the same goes for Southern Illinois. Where are the "Which is more southern.....Illinois or Texas" threads?? Why is it so easy to try and label Missouri a southern state but, people can't even fathom Illinois being considered one? Illinois almost reaches as far south as Missouri for petes sake.
Missouri was a slave state, and is actually in the SEC which makes no sense at all but whatever. Southern Missouri isn't too different from Arkansas, cities like Springfield, Joplin, and Poplar Bluff are actually a little bit southern. Mark Twain is a native of Missouri, and is often associated with the South along with his novels. He even came from a slave-owning family and joined the Confederate army!
I don't believe Missouri is that southern, because Kansas City and St. Louis are solidly Mid-Western IMO along with the majority of the state. However, if you know about the history of Missouri, you'll see that it's a little bit southern.
I'll go ahead and sum this up as far as Missouri is concerned: St. Louis and Kansas City hold the majority of Missouri's population and those two cities are 100% Midwestern therefore the state is for the most part, Midwestern. So the Census Bureau is correct on this one.
Why is Missouri always dragged into this Southern nonsense anyways? Sure parts of Southern Mo have quite a bit of Southern influence but, the same goes for Southern Illinois. Where are the "Which is more southern.....Illinois or Texas" threads?? Why is it so easy to try and label Missouri a southern state but, people can't even fathom Illinois being considered one? Illinois almost reaches as far south as Missouri for petes sake.
Trying to compare Missouri and Illinois is like trying to compare apples and oranges.
1. Illinois was a northern state during the civil war that banned slavery. Missouri was a border state. A star on the confederate flag represents Missouri...it was accepted by the south as a southern state during the civil war.
2. Parts of Missouri are IN the south, not just influenced by it. I don't think anywhere in Illinois would locals say they are firmly in the south.
3. Missouri goes farther south than illinois and reaches nowhere near as far north as Illinois.
4. Contrary to what people from Stl and kc believe...there are still a couple million other people in this state apart from their metros. If you want to put it that way we could say a larger portion of Missouri geographically, is southern...even lumping the geographic areas of Stl and kc together.
5. Large southern baptist population throughout the whole state...unlike Illinois.
These are just a few reasons I could list several more. Hopefully you can see the vast differences between the two, if not then I'm sorry.
Trying to compare Missouri and Illinois is like trying to compare apples and oranges.
Why is that? They are border states that share a rather long border, around 300 miles I think. I lived right on the border and couldn't tell you the difference between a Missourian and an Illinoisan.
1. Illinois was a northern state during the civil war that banned slavery. Missouri was a border state. A star on the confederate flag represents Missouri...it was accepted by the south as a southern state during the civil war.
Yeah well Missouri had a star on the American flag too so which is it? A pro southern exiled government doesn't make it a Southern state. In fact, Missouri provided over twice as many troops to the Union as they did the CSA.
2. Parts of Missouri are IN the south, not just influenced by it. I don't think anywhere in Illinois would locals say they are firmly in the south.
No, as defined by the census bureau, all of Missouri is in the Midwest.
3. Missouri goes farther south than illinois and reaches nowhere near as far north as Illinois.
It definitely doesn't reach as far North but, it isn't that much further South.
4. Contrary to what people from Stl and kc believe...there are still a couple million other people in this state apart from their metros. If you want to put it that way we could say a larger portion of Missouri geographically, is southern...even lumping the geographic areas of Stl and kc together.
No again. Both of those metros are solidly Midwestern as well as the entire Northern part of the state so that would make it mostly Midwestern. I'm guessing you've never been to Northern Missouri? It reminds me more of Iowa than it does any southern state.
5. Large southern baptist population throughout the whole state...unlike Illinois.
I also wouldn't say that they have a large presence all over the state, same as Illinois.
These are just a few reasons I could list several more. Hopefully you can see the vast differences between the two, if not then I'm sorry.
Yeah Branson is fairly southern so feel free to say your a southerner but, don't include the rest of the state because it just isn't true. Travel around Missouri a little more, would ya.
Yeah Branson is fairly southern so feel free to say your a southerner but, don't include the rest of the state because it just isn't true. Travel around Missouri a little more, would ya.
You are being unreasonable. I can share the same denomination/religion map by county that shows Missouri is overall much more southern baptist than Illinois. You are trying to distort facts by skewings the figures. Illinois has TWICE the population as Missouri. They have roughly the same number of baptists. That means by percentage of residents Missouri has Two times as many baptists as Illinois. Over 75% of counties in Missouri claim baptist as their largest denomination I guess that doesn't mean much then. I never debated that areas that share the long border with Illinois don't share similarities with Illinois. Also we share a HUGE border with arkansas. Those areas of Missouri are indistinguishable from Arkansas. So by your reasoning a city lying on one side of the border is in a completely different cultural region??? You can debate all you want but Missouri was a border state during the civil war NOT a northern state. That is a huge distinction from Illinois. Missouri reaches further south than Kentucky. So according to your logic Kentucky is a northern state. The reason there is nothing on citydata like "is Texas or Illinois more southern", is because no one would EVER claim iillinois as being southern. Obviously Missouri is up for debate...
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.
you need to try BG's Catfish in Kingston (Texoma area). It's REALLY good! Fresh cut fries and homemade ice cream too.
