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.
The Mississippi was always the historical boundary. You can say that the states directly bordering aren't western enough, or get too much rain, or whatever, but culturally, topographically, and historically they're more aligned with points west than east.
St Louis is the "Gateway to the West". Not Kansas City.
You could either say northern Minnesota is neither Eastern nor Western. Or you could call it Canada for ships and giggles. Either way, it is ambiguous on some level.
A good chunk of Minnesota is basically East Dakota. Once you get south and west of the Northwoods or the old Big Woods footprint, the state was open prairie with buffalo, and what not. Today it's corn and soybeans. Much like Iowa and the eastern half of Nebraska.
The Mississippi was always the historical boundary. You can say that the states directly bordering aren't western enough, or get too much rain, or whatever, but culturally, topographically, and historically they're more aligned with points west than east.
St Louis is the "Gateway to the West". Not Kansas City.
Obviously the Mississippi is a marker and boundary that is the traditional east west split but boy in east Texas and SE Oklahoma....they seem a heck of a lot more like Alabama and Mississippi (and obviously Ark. and La) than they do even the western part of their own states.
Obviously the Mississippi is a marker and boundary that is the traditional east west split but boy in east Texas and SE Oklahoma....they seem a heck of a lot more like Alabama and Mississippi (and obviously Ark. and La) than they do even the western part of their own states.
I would agree with that. Non-Ozark Arkansas, Louisiana, East Texas, and SE Oklahoma are very similar to Mississippi or Alabama, and like you said, more that way than they are alike the rest of their own states.
But most of Missouri and Iowa, and significant parts of Minnesota (basically the portion of the state west and south of the river's catchment) are more like the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas than Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana from a cultural and geographic standpoint.
Obviously the Mississippi is a marker and boundary that is the traditional east west split but boy in east Texas and SE Oklahoma....they seem a heck of a lot more like Alabama and Mississippi (and obviously Ark. and La) than they do even the western part of their own states.
To quote the motto of an Eastern state, “to be rather than to seem”. Texas is not Eastern US. There is no stereotype for who is from Eastern US because it is not a cultural region. East Texans might be more like Alabama because they are culturally Southern, because there is a cultural (albeit varied) South. Someone isn’t more Eastern US than Western US. Someone is either born and/or lived in the Eastern US or born and/or lived in the Western US (or northern Minnesota natch). It’s a mostly binary concept that doesn’t need us to study how syllables are pronounced or which food is grown where or who says pop and who says coke. That isn’t what this is. It’s simply stating where relative to the Mississippi are you.
We aren’t doing halfway anything. No one has ever cared which side of Lincoln, Nebraska you are on.
I do think people are confusing terms though. The Midwest is a region with cultural bonds, the South is a region with strong cultural bonds, New England is a region with cultural bonds, the East Coast is a region in a different way (perhaps more as a pejorative than anything, and a loose one at that). But the Eastern US and the Western US aren’t regions in that sense. They are simply matters of facts. Where in relation to the Mississippi were you born (with only northern Minnesota offering some issues).
Yea imagine saying East Coast when you live in the Carolinas.
To quote the motto of an Eastern state, “to be rather than to seem”. Texas is not Eastern US. There is no stereotype for who is from Eastern US because it is not a cultural region. East Texans might be more like Alabama because they are culturally Southern, because there is a cultural (albeit varied) South. Someone isn’t more Eastern US than Western US. Someone is either born and/or lived in the Eastern US or born and/or lived in the Western US (or northern Minnesota natch). It’s a mostly binary concept that doesn’t need us to study how syllables are pronounced or which food is grown where or who says pop and who says coke. That isn’t what this is. It’s simply stating where relative to the Mississippi are you.
Yes, we get that the Mississippi is the boundary between east and west because it is a big a$$ river and it bisects the country and has traditionally defined east and west. But it's kind of random in the fact that there are other factors besides the Mississippi that influence whether the countryside, the climate and the people are more eastern or western.
In other words, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to define if the Mississippi River bisected the plains states in two.
I would agree with that. Non-Ozark Arkansas, Louisiana, East Texas, and SE Oklahoma are very similar to Mississippi or Alabama, and like you said, more that way than they are alike the rest of their own states.
But most of Missouri and Iowa, and significant parts of Minnesota (basically the portion of the state west and south of the river's catchment) are more like the Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas than Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, or Indiana from a cultural and geographic standpoint.
The Ozarks are basically west Appalachia, not the eastern Rockies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwalker96
Anything east of the great plains is Eastern to me.
Yes, we get that the Mississippi is the boundary between east and west because it is a big a$$ river and it bisects the country and has traditionally defined east and west. But it's kind of random in the fact that there are other factors besides the Mississippi that influence whether the countryside, the climate and the people are more eastern or western.
In other words, it would have been a heck of a lot easier to define if the Mississippi River bisected the plains states in two.
Except there is no “more Eastern or Western” person. They aren’t cultural regions with cultural stereotypes that people can be compared and contrasted to. Maybe during the land rush days when “Eastern” was perhaps pejorative for a New Yorker who travelled to Dodge City, but it really isn’t a thing. There is no Eastern culture, and in fact the Eastern half of the US probably has the greatest diversity of cultures in the US. There is also no communal “Eastern” climate or countryside. It’s not really a thing except as it exists in relation to the Mississippi River.
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.
