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.
That Pacific Northwest orange area includes a 10:1 rainfall variation, with both rainforest and desert, and completely different rural subsistence types and lifestyles. I don't get what the hell they were thinking.
This is a fascinating topic. Rural areas had a lot of immigrants then, a factor that's only started to return due to the ag economy.
I think so, it's clearly a border state. Would you consider Mark Twain a Southerner, as he grew up in MO? Kansas City feels very Midwestern to me. St. Louis has a Midwestern feel today, but it's history is that it's early growth was from Southerners coming up on riverboats from New Orleans and other point South. I can't exactly put my finger on it, but it still has more of a Southern feel to me than KC. For the more rural areas, my best (not perfect) dividing line is somewhere around I-70, with points North feeling more Midwestern, and points South feeling more Southern. The Bootheel is the only part that feels Deep South to me.
As for OP's map, it is interesting that a lot of these regions have not changed much over the last 80 years.
Kansas City is still a very segregated town. As of 1990 (this may have changed now) Black people "simply didn't" live north of the river. On the Kansas side, there is a sharp divide between Wyandott and Johnson Counties. An hour out of KC, there were still "sundown towns" in Missouri, but not Kansas. Most small (5,000) Missouri towns today nave nearly zero black populations.
Mark Twain was very southern, and in the 1950s, Hannibal was a very conspicuously segregated town, even though near Iowa border.
The point of this thread isn’t segregation or Jim Crow laws. It is looking at how and old map broke the country down into regions, and seeing how it hold up today. But no, segregation did not exist in the North to the degree it did in the South. That isn’t to say the North didn’t also have some segregation in some areas, but there is a reason why the Great Migration took place, and it was that the North was generally better than the South for an African American prior to the Civil Rights movement. You have trouble seeing the difference between SOME private individuals choosing to discriminate vs state mandated discrimination with the threat of fines and imprisonment for not discriminating?
One is the equivalent of living somewhere where a lot of the people are religious, the other is the equivalent of living in a theocracy. Laws matter.
The point of this thread isn’t segregation or Jim Crow laws. It is looking at how and old map broke the country down into regions, and seeing how it hold up today. But no, segregation did not exist in the North to the degree it did in the South. That isn’t to say the North didn’t also have some segregation in some areas, but there is a reason why the Great Migration took place, and it was that the North was generally better than the South for an African American prior to the Civil Rights movement. You have trouble seeing the difference between SOME private individuals choosing to discriminate vs state mandated discrimination with the threat of fines and imprisonment for not discriminating?
One is the equivalent of living somewhere where a lot of the people are religious, the other is the equivalent of living in a theocracy. Laws matter.
Segregation was equally employed in the North as the South. It wasn't just SOME the word is PREDOMINATELY individuals & institutions that practice discriminatory actions. I stated that was WRITTEN into law while other was LEGAL practices. There's no difference in the effect it have on my community: Segregated in South, Segregated in North.
I , my perspective as a Black man, call it Jim Crow America.
The point of this thread isn’t segregation or Jim Crow laws. It is looking at how and old map broke the country down into regions, and seeing how it hold up today. But no, segregation did not exist in the North to the degree it did in the South. That isn’t to say the North didn’t also have some segregation in some areas, but there is a reason why the Great Migration took place, and it was that the North was generally better than the South for an African American prior to the Civil Rights movement. You have trouble seeing the difference between SOME private individuals choosing to discriminate vs state mandated discrimination with the threat of fines and imprisonment for not discriminating?
One is the equivalent of living somewhere where a lot of the people are religious, the other is the equivalent of living in a theocracy. Laws matter.
The great migration took place because there were cheap labor jobs available in the north in exchange for blacks being funneled into inner city hell holes once they arrived for those jobs. America has rose colored glasses on with regards to nationwide racism at that time.
In terms of segregation, I think we are talking about two different concepts separated in time and intensity. Yes there was segregation of some sort all over the country: North, south, east, west, urban and rural. You will note how the map narrative places a strong emphasis by describing racial and ethnic quantities in the different regions. It apparently was important. Segregation applied to blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Indians, Asians, and anyone else that fit the local white template of the "other". People were not being lynched everywhere but it was certainly a factor in the south and in parts of the southwest. Jim Crow laws were on the books in the south but not as much in the north or border states. The practice was there but not backed up by law. I grew up in Ferguson, MO and the only segregation that I saw as a kid, beyond housing and neighborhoods, was that blacks could not use the municipal swimming pool in 1958, when I had a birthday party there. That was the accepted practice all over, not just there. I saw it at laundromats in the west in the 1970s. Segregation today is a different animal but still there. There is a subtle and ingrained racial system. Some of it is by choice but not most of it. I saw it working in social services and criminal justice for 30+ years into today and it is undeniable. There is a difference from 1930 and 2020 but it still exists at some level. We have had a rough time the past few years but it still doesn't approach the early 1900s.
Kansas City is still a very segregated town. As of 1990 (this may have changed now) Black people "simply didn't" live north of the river. On the Kansas side, there is a sharp divide between Wyandott and Johnson Counties. An hour out of KC, there were still "sundown towns" in Missouri, but not Kansas. Most small (5,000) Missouri towns today nave nearly zero black populations.
Mark Twain was very southern, and in the 1950s, Hannibal was a very conspicuously segregated town, even though near Iowa border.
Hannibal is in the area that back in the 1850s, was known as "Little Dixie", settled by lots of pro-slavery people from KY, TN, etc.
The great migration took place because there were cheap labor jobs available in the north in exchange for blacks being funneled into inner city hell holes once they arrived for those jobs. America has rose colored glasses on with regards to nationwide racism at that time.
The "inner-city hellholes" you refer to were more a matter of economics than outright racial prejudice. The people who arrived in the North in the Great Migration were dirt poor when they began migrating in WWI. They located in the areas of the cheapest rents in the city. Housing in these areas was initially occupied by first groups to immigrate, largely Irish and German immigrants, who moved on as they got more prosperous.
Then successive groups of immigrants, i.e., the Italians and Jews, Poles and Eastern Europeans moved in as the previous groups moved on. Blacks migrated to Northern cities mostly after the successive waves of European immigrants had arrived. It's what sociologists called "successive migration".
Northern cities did not build "colored towns" of flimsy shacks set on concrete blocks practically piled on top of one another specifically for black workers like was done in Southern towns and cities.
The "inner-city hellholes" you refer to were more a matter of economics than outright racial prejudice. The people who arrived in the North in the Great Migration were dirt poor when they began migrating in WWI. They located in the areas of the cheapest rents in the city. Housing in these areas was initially occupied by first groups to immigrate, largely Irish and German immigrants, who moved on as they got more prosperous.
Then successive groups of immigrants, i.e., the Italians and Jews, Poles and Eastern Europeans moved in as the previous groups moved on. Blacks migrated to Northern cities mostly after the successive waves of European immigrants had arrived. It's what sociologists called "successive migration".
Northern cities did not build "colored towns" of flimsy shacks set on concrete blocks practically piled on top of one another specifically for black workers like was done in Southern towns and cities.
Well that's convenient.
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.
