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.
Certainly not your way. Your way excludes Louisiana from the real South which is the most ridiculous thing I've heard, as well as Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky all of which constitute the real South. Your way is certainly and factually incorrect.
Go back and read post #41, I included LA as part of the real South.
But there is not just one part of the South man. To group all those states into one region is absolutely ridiculous. There's the South Atlantic States, East South Central States, West South Central States, Southern Appalachia, Deep South, Gulf South, Upper South, and so many other ways to classify it.
But to group ALL of those states in the same region is just crazy. Oklahoma is nothing like Florida and Texas is nothing like Virginia. They are not in the same region. Sure, if the U.S. Census Bureau wants to classify it all as one region, fine, easier for them. But in an opinionated discussion like this I'd much rather group regions by geographic location, culture, and history instead of what some government agency has deemed a "region".
No they aren't. Maryland is NOT the South. The Census Bureau has it wrong. Anyone with an education knows Maryland is not the South. I know you believe it is but something tells me you just take the Mason Dixon as a hard boundary that can't be disputed. The argument for Maryland being Southern from a modern standpoint is very weak. Hence the argument is invalid. You can feel free to disagree but I'm not changing my tune. You in fact are wrong but you'll never admit it. Hence you're a waste of my time and energy.
Would you like to provide evidence or something, or are we just suppose to believe you?
Go back and read post #41, I included LA as part of the real South.
But there is not just one part of the South man. To group all those states into one region is absolutely ridiculous. There's the South Atlantic States, East South Central States, West South Central States, Southern Appalachia, Deep South, Gulf South, Upper South, and so many other ways to classify it.
But to group ALL of those states in the same region is just crazy. Oklahoma is nothing like Florida and Texas is nothing like Virginia. They are not in the same region. Sure, if the U.S. Census Bureau wants to classify it all as one region, fine, easier for them. But in an opinionated discussion like this I'd much rather group regions by geographic location, culture, and history instead of what some government agency has deemed a "region".
The South is an actual region based on geographic location, culture, and history; this is pretty easy to prove so let's not go to the other extreme. However, it can be argued that subregions are more relevant and several exist within the South (e.g., Gulf Coast, Piedmont, Lowcountry, Appalachia, etc.).
When speaking of regions, there are nuances to consider that go beyond the standard South/Northeast/Midwest/West designations.
The South is an actual region based on geographic location, culture, and history; this is pretty easy to prove so let's not go to the other extreme. However, it can be argued that subregions are more relevant and several exist within the South (e.g., Gulf Coast, Piedmont, Lowcountry, Appalachia, etc.).
When speaking of regions, there are nuances to consider that go beyond the standard South/Northeast/Midwest/West designations.
Skimming through this thread, I didn't see this already, but two cities in different regions that have similarities to me are Birmingham, Alabama and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Both have a similar history as far as their economies being based around steel mills, both are considered fairly liberal compared to the much more conservative hinterlands in their respective states, both have risen from gritty industrial towns to revitalized, higher tech, higher skilled economies. Although not as pronounced as Pittsburgh, Birmingham even has quite a bit of Italian heritage.
Geographically, they aren't as similar, but it's difficult to find places that are comparable to Pittsburgh in that regard that have even a semblance of the same feel.
Why are you comparing Maryland to far upper Northeastern states instead of comparing it to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware? It's very much like those Northeastern states. The DC metro is not the Sunbelt. That's like comparing Missouri and saying it's not Midwestern because it's not like the Upper Midwest. New England and the Upper Midwest aren't the core regions of the Northeast and Midwest respectively.
I'm pretty sure you know he didn't say that. He said the region's growth patterns are Sunbelt-like and he'd be correct on that point.
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.
