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.
There is a book, the name of which escapes me at the moment, which is a good read to understand the how and why of the various 'cultures' which have emerged along the Appalachian Mountain chain. It has to do with all of the imaginable variables: language, transportation, resources, isolation, government, etc.
I imagine that these articles are a take off on the original work in the book.
also would this suggest today Pittsburgh would be the capital city of the northern Appalachia and Charlotte in the south?
Charlotte isn't in Appalachia at all. In the South, I'd be inclined to say Birmingham, which, incidentally, was historically called the Pittsburgh of the South.
The first map is pretty fascinating. Apparently, I live in Yankeelachia as a nice chunk of DC-Baltimore is part of that subregion, which is interesting. It also has a couple of metro Atlanta counties in Dixielachia, including Gwinnett County, which is also interesting. I wouldn't extend the subregion that far south, but Cherokee County, where I used to live, is included and I agree with that.
I don't quite get the Metrolachia designation. I'm not sure if the liberal criterium applies to the county or the central city; in either case, Birmingham/Jefferson County should be designated Metrolachia. If the criterium applies to the county, Hamilton County, TN (Chattanooga) should have been excluded. Outside of that particular criterium, the Greenville, SC area certainly fits the bill.
Though both have their problems, I like the second one better. Re: the first, I can't for the life of me think of what "metropolis" there is in central PA (State College hardly qualifies), why Beaver County PA is not considered part of Pittsburgh "metrolachia" when it is part of the Pittsburgh MSA and why Lawrence County, PA is not part of "Agrilachia".
My main issue with the second map is it doesn't go far enough north, and again excludes Lawrence County, PA. The area it calls "Pittsburghlachia" goes too far north and east; most of those counties should be included in "Interior Ridgelines"
Though both have their problems, I like the second one better. Re: the first, I can't for the life of me think of what "metropolis" there is in central PA (State College hardly qualifies), why Beaver County PA is not considered part of Pittsburgh "metrolachia" when it is part of the Pittsburgh MSA and why Lawrence County, PA is not part of "Agrilachia".
My main issue with the second map is it doesn't go far enough north, and again excludes Lawrence County, PA. The area it calls "Pittsburghlachia" goes too far north and east; most of those counties should be included in "Interior Ridgelines"
I'm guessing State College was included in Metrolachia because it's liberal. But yeah, there are inconsistencies there. It seems that they only included counties that are home to the central cities of their metros.
In the first map, I think we can all agree the "Metrolachia" is bs. I do like "Agrilachia" as a region. So often people think of Appalachia as coal fields and forest. It's good to ID the agricultural parts of the region.
I know the Appalachian Regional Commission extends into northeastern Mississippi, but how much of that area is really "Appalachia?" I haven't been to that area of MS before, but it doesn't seem, based on topography, that it's all that Appalachian.
Also, once the map gets north of the Potomac, there are many eastern counties that can't legitimately be considered part of Appalachia. Montgomery, Howard, Baltimore, Harford and Cecil counties in Maryland? Half of those counties are in (or at least partially in) the coastal plain. Montgomery County, PA? Fairfield and New Haven counties in CT? There are some small hills in some of these places, but they're "piedmont" at best.
The second map makes a little more sense, though I'd like to see it cover New England's Appalachian regions and it may dip a bit too far into Alabama. I know Tallapoosa and Elmore counties aren't quite Black Belt yet, but there's a southern Piedmont or space between Black Belt and Appalachia that these types of places would be classified in, IMO. I think Shelby County is really as far south as you can go with "Appalachia." The land starts to flatten out quite a bit south of Alabaster.
This may be useful as an identifier for certain geological features, but culturally, no - it's way off. "Agrilachia" Tennessee does not have much in common with that similar region in central PA.
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.
