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 no such thing as a midwestern "culture" which is why coming up with a dividing line between the Midwest and the Northeast will be necessarily arbitrary. I mean culturally speaking there is nothing that really binds together Duluth, MN and Evansville, IN - both are more similar to areas in other regions of the U.S. than they are to one another. Thus setting the eastern boundary at the Ohio/PA border is fine.
The southern border is a bit trickier. There are absolutely areas of Missouri (Bootheel, Ozarks) which are culturally speaking part of the South. This also extends a bit into far Downstate IL and even IN. But it's just hard to say where the line should be drawn. You can find people with "twangs" to their voice as far north as Central IL/IN/OH in more rural areas.
Overall though I consider the western border is most difficult to define. I feel like the West is mostly defined not by culture, but by differences in land usage than the Eastern U.S. As you travel west from the Great Lakes, there are really two transition zones. Around halfway through the Plains States, you transition from farmland to a mixture of pastureland and irrigated crops, which is a landscape which continues west into Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Ultimately I think the Plains States are all Midwestern by virtue of most of the population being in the east, but there's arguments to be made that some areas of them are really parts of the West.
There is no such thing as a midwestern "culture" which is why coming up with a dividing line between the Midwest and the Northeast will be necessarily arbitrary. I mean culturally speaking there is nothing that really binds together Duluth, MN and Evansville, IN - both are more similar to areas in other regions of the U.S. than they are to one another. Thus setting the eastern boundary at the Ohio/PA border is fine.
The southern border is a bit trickier. There are absolutely areas of Missouri (Bootheel, Ozarks) which are culturally speaking part of the South. This also extends a bit into far Downstate IL and even IN. But it's just hard to say where the line should be drawn. You can find people with "twangs" to their voice as far north as Central IL/IN/OH in more rural areas.
Overall though I consider the western border is most difficult to define. I feel like the West is mostly defined not by culture, but by differences in land usage than the Eastern U.S. As you travel west from the Great Lakes, there are really two transition zones. Around halfway through the Plains States, you transition from farmland to a mixture of pastureland and irrigated crops, which is a landscape which continues west into Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana. Ultimately I think the Plains States are all Midwestern by virtue of most of the population being in the east, but there's arguments to be made that some areas of them are really parts of the West.
You're absolutely correct, when you state that there is no such thing as a "Midwestern culture". States vary fairly greatly in this large region. Western Nebraska is more "western" than eastern Colorado. Eastern Colorado is Kansas, basically. As far as the western border, I think it starts in the north where it actually starts...at the end of the Dakotas. As far as south of that, western NE is basically "western", but it will never be designated as such. The Great Lakes Region doesn't have much in common with the plains states...at all. Nothing about WI and MI are reminiscent of NE or KS. Indiana has such a small Great Lakes shoreline, it doesn't seem like a Great Lakes state...at all. Even IL doesn't have much of a border, but Chicago has an entire border or Lake MI, so it basically seems like a continuation of Wisconsin's border. IL outside of Chicago, is Indiana, basically.
Anyway, my point is, not you, but many try to lump all the Midwestern states together, when considering culture, lifestyle, etc. Couldn't be farther from the truth. I think MI and WI are the most alike, as they both have the most shoreline. The Great Lakes "thing", though, does not carry over to western WI, and MN only seems Great Lakes in the far north...hours from the Twin Cities.
I think anyone in here knows what the census lists.
To me personally it starts in western Indiana, and follows a line consisting of I-70 and I-44 to OKC, and then curves north along the eastern edge of the high plains to Canada. I think places like northern Oklahoma and eastern Colorado that are outside the census Midwest are culturally, economically, and geographically more linked to the Midwest than the Mountain West or the south. I view places like Ohio, Michigan, and southern Indiana is inherently more eastern than central. I think southern Illinois, the Missouri Ozarks, and especially the Bootheel have a lot of Southern qualities.
At the end of the day, I think the Midwest is a huge region with a lot of diversity, and there's a general line at the Mississippi that divides it into kind of a Great Lakes or Great Plains split. The Lakes states have more dense urbanity and less of a reliance on agriculture, with a focus on industrial manufacturing. The Rust Belt, if you will. More populated, more forested. The Plains states are more rural, have generally smaller cities, less of an industrial focus. Huge on ag be it large scale row crop farming, or ranching. More conservative. My home is more on the plains side of the equation, and that kind of frames my view of what's really Midwestern. I don't cross the Mississippi much other than going to Wisconsin, so I'm just less familiar and ultimately less connected to the eastern Midwest.
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
I pretty much agree with those 12 states (approx. 70 million population) being 'Midwest".
There are southern sections of Missouri that have a strong southern influence....
Also western sections of the "Great Plains States" are more "western" than "midwestern".
Western areas of North Dakota...South Dakota ...and Nebraska ...look more western....
areas west of the "corn belt"...is starts getting too dry ...farming is not as intensive ...more "wheat" than corn
with some ranching as well....topography starts looking western too....for example, in the Dakotas the Missouri River seems to be the "dividing line" ...on I-90 in South Dakota ...west of the Missouri things start looking more western...with a lower population density...the famous "Badlands"...then the "Black Hills"......starting to look more like Wyoming than the Midwest....same with around Scottsbluff, Nebraskaand Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota ...arid looking with more badlands.
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
North Dakota
Ohio
South Dakota
Wisconsin
I pretty much agree with those 12 states (approx. 70 million population) being 'Midwest".
There are southern sections of Missouri that have a strong southern influence....
Also western sections of the "Great Plains States" are more "western" than "midwestern".
Western areas of North Dakota...South Dakota ...and Nebraska ...look more western....
areas west of the "corn belt"...is starts getting too dry ...farming is not as intensive ...more "wheat" than corn
with some ranching as well....topography starts looking western too....for example, in the Dakotas the Missouri River seems to be the "dividing line" ...on I-90 in South Dakota ...west of the Missouri things start looking more western...with a lower population density...the famous "Badlands"...then the "Black Hills"......starting to look more like Wyoming than the Midwest....same with around Scottsbluff, Nebraskaand Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota ...arid looking with more badlands.
Yes, the Badlands, Black Hills, Scottsbluff...all are within the boundaries of the Midwest, but all make you feel like you are in the Mountain West. Much more so, as I mentioned, than eastern Colorado. People need to accept that there is not one generic "picture" of the Midwest, as it's so vast, so different, and as I said, Wisconsin and Michigan are so very different, by virtue of their access to the Great Lakes. No one, no one, should put them in the same category as states with the Badlands, Kansas, etc., as their only commonality is that they are a part of the same region. Personally, I think there should be a Great Lakes Region...it's so different than the states that are in the Midwest, without the lakes.
I overnighted there a year ago driving to Colorado. I’d say the Midwest intrudes a bit east into Pennsylvania and ends at the E-470 ring road east of Denver. If you want to end it at Ohio and Kansas, close enough.
I'm not sure I'd even include Kentucky in the midwest. to me the southeastern boundary of the midwest would be Cincinnati. Actually, to me these states are fully midwest:
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
ND
SD
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
I'm not sure I'd even include Kentucky in the midwest. to me the southeastern boundary of the midwest would be Cincinnati. Actually, to me these states are fully midwest:
Ohio
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Wisconsin
ND
SD
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Kentucky has never been a part of the Midwest...
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.
