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.
To me Oklahoma is very much middle America. That, however, is not the same thing as "midwest". Rural Tennessee, Texas, Central Florida, even the central valley of California all have that feel.
Thats what the guy in the song was getting at. "Small town America", "flyover state" whatever you want to call it, Oklahoma certainly is that, but thats not just the midwest, its the rural south and midwest and even parts of the west too. Its what small town Indiana, Texas, North Carolina, and yes, California, all have in common.
Some aspects of American culture do not follow these strict regional lines. Thats why this modern country music is so popular with young people in small towns across the country.
[quote=inskeep303;17935831]COLORADO IS NOT MIDWEST AT ALL!!! we have the arid high plains, not the humid plains like in the midwest. we are part of the west, mtn. west, and SW.[/quote
I think parts seem like the Midwest - you can't tell when you enter Colorado from Kansas. It seems a lot like you're still in Kansas when you cross the border (or, if you please, Kansas seems like that part of Colorado). I agree that overall it's not like the Midwest, but parts are.
Good map, but I wouldn't consider Northern Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois and the Upper Midwest; same with SE Michigan.
I agree. Having grown up in northern Ohio, I have never heard of nor felt like it was the Upper Midwest. Actually, no one I've ever known has called our area the Midwest.....we prefer to call the region the Great Lakes. When I think of Midwest I think of central Ohio, central Indiana and points west like Illinois and Missouri.
I agree. Having grown up in northern Ohio, I have never heard of nor felt like it was the Upper Midwest. Actually, no one I've ever known has called our area the Midwest.....we prefer to call the region the Great Lakes. When I think of Midwest I think of central Ohio, central Indiana and points west like Illinois and Missouri.
Most of Missouri south of I-70 is Ozarkian- part of the upland South. Wooded topography with smaller farms that range from ranches, dairies, orchards, and less crops.
COLORADO IS NOT MIDWEST AT ALL!!! we have the arid high plains, not the humid plains like in the midwest. we are part of the west, mtn. west, and SW.[/quote
I think parts seem like the Midwest - you can't tell when you enter Colorado from Kansas. It seems a lot like you're still in Kansas when you cross the border (or, if you please, Kansas seems like that part of Colorado). I agree that overall it's not like the Midwest, but parts are.
Only the eastern 1/3 of Kansas is the Midwest- even though it is peripheral. The rest of the state transitioning from east to west becomes more western overall. Most corn in Kansas is grown through irrigation which isn't the case in the core of the Midwest. Culturally, climatically, and socially Kansas is not like most of the Midwest at all.
It depends on what you consider "Midwest." There really are two "Midwests" - the Great Lakes and the Great Plains. I've lived in both regions, and I can say that Kansas is very much like the Great Plains Midwest, but has little in common with states like Michigan or Ohio.
I've also spent time in the West, and Kansas (or Minnesota, South Dakota, any Great Plains state) isn't like that either.
Growing up, I always considered the Plains part of the Midwest, but now that I live in the Plains (and yes, western Minnesota is very much part of the Great Plains), I can see the difference. Really, the Great Plains should be its own region, or Michigan/Ohio/Indiana should be thrown in with the Northeast. For example, western MN is much more like Kansas or Nebraska (or even eastern Colorado) than it is like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester or any areas on the east side of Minnesota, which are much more Great Lakes - eastern Midwest areas like Michigan.
The way I see it:
Western Minnesota, South Dakota, western Iowa, northwest Missouri (including Kansas City), Nebraska, Kansas, eastern Colorado, eastern Wyoming and eastern and central Montana are all part of one region (the Great Plains).
Eastern and central Minnesota, eastern Iowa, northern and central Illinois, Wisconsin, northeast Missouri (including St. Louis), northern and central Indiana, Michigan and northern and central Ohio are all part of one region (the Great Lakes). The term "Midwest" could apply to either of these regions, but it doesn't make sense to group them together.
It depends on what you consider "Midwest." There really are two "Midwests" - the Great Lakes and the Great Plains. I've lived in both regions, and I can say that Kansas is very much like the Great Plains Midwest, but has little in common with states like Michigan or Ohio.
I've also spent time in the West, and Kansas (or Minnesota, South Dakota, any Great Plains state) isn't like that either.
Growing up, I always considered the Plains part of the Midwest, but now that I live in the Plains (and yes, western Minnesota is very much part of the Great Plains), I can see the difference. Really, the Great Plains should be its own region, or Michigan/Ohio/Indiana should be thrown in with the Northeast. For example, western MN is much more like Kansas or Nebraska (or even eastern Colorado) than it is like Minneapolis-St. Paul, Duluth, Rochester or any areas on the east side of Minnesota, which are much more Great Lakes - eastern Midwest areas like Michigan.
The way I see it:
Western Minnesota, South Dakota, western Iowa, northwest Missouri (including Kansas City), Nebraska, Kansas, eastern Colorado, eastern Wyoming and eastern and central Montana are all part of one region (the Great Plains).
Eastern and central Minnesota, eastern Iowa, northern and central Illinois, Wisconsin, northeast Missouri (including St. Louis), northern and central Indiana, Michigan and northern and central Ohio are all part of one region (the Great Lakes). The term "Midwest" could apply to either of these regions, but it doesn't make sense to group them together.
Generally agree. The Great Plains should be its own entirely separate region apart from the Midwest. If you analyze how the Midwest developed in an economic and historic sense it was MUCH DIFFERENT compared to the Great Plains. THe Midwest in the late 1800s and early 1900s had a very strong heavy industrial, manufacturing, foundry, and factory economy that attracted a lot of European migration to the large urban centres of Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Cincinnatti, St. Louis, etc. In contrast, most areas of the Great Plains, excluding urban areas, had far little in the way of migration during this key time period. The explanation is basically one of geographic location. The Great Plains was always more peripheral and isolated. However, it served as the agricultural hinterlands that served as the supply chain for finished agricultural products and processing in the large urban centres. This is why cities like Chicago and Kansas City had their big stockyards right in the heavy industrial areas of town near rail access. It wasn't until the 1970s that these stockyards (commercial ag complex) relocated and set up shop out in the Plains where they could escape "regulations" and find even lower cost labor.
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.
