Why people in Pittsburgh don't like the term Appalachia (New Kensington: upper-class, how much)

[BrianTH]

As an aside, I think most people agree the ARC definition of Appalachia is a bit over-inclusive. Since first created in 1965, the ARC definition has been expanded over time, largely on the basis of economic need.

Anyway, before you get to the mining versus farming story, I think you can go even more basic and note that Appalachia is a highlands region between two lowlands regions. That feeds into the mining versus farming story, but it also goes to population density, transportation issues, climate, recreational culture, and on and on. This is useful to note because mining versus farming alone doesn't necessarily explain all the socioeconomic effects--after all, lots of poor people have been employed in farming at various points in U.S. history (as indentured servants, sharecroppers, migrant workers, and so on).

[ki0eh]

Originally Posted by stevo6

I look at these regional designation in terms of geology * * * my "definition" would suggest that maybe the maps are a bit more extensive than they should be, especially at the northern and southern ends.

I think if you extend the track of your gelolgic thinking a bit further to a zone where crop agriculture is less sustainable beyond subsistence - which of course is geologically related as well - you might see where the northern end at least fits in, as hilly and relatively economically backward. Even though the Federal definition (where these maps come from) includes such locales as the hometown of IBM and the largest Ivy League university!

Some parts of where I've had to go in Cortland or Steuben counties in NY could more than hold their own with locales I've also had to go in Fayette, Greene, and Washington counties of PA.

Don't forget that the oil region extends into NY State and coal into the northern tier of PA (bituminous into Tioga and Bradford counties and anthracite just nipping the SE corner of Susquehanna).

The extractive economy has actually advanced northward in the last generation - although underground salt mines have existed for some time, glacial gravels in NY State valleys are being shipped by rail to distant customers now, and the Marcellus Shale extends actually a bit beyond the Federally designated Appalachian border (oddly enough, to Marcellus, in Onondaga County, NY )

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by bradjl2009

One PA county I'm surprised is only considered transitional is Centre County with University Park. Considering how well they were doing in the recession I thought they would be in Competitive.

I don't know any details, but just speculating: one of the three categories is per capita income, and all of this is in comparison to national rankings. That methodology is going to create a systemic bias against relatively low cost-of-living counties, making it hard for them to get all the way up to Competitive or Attainment.

[stevo6]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As an aside, I think most people agree the ARC definition of Appalachia is a bit over-inclusive. Since first created in 1965, the ARC definition has been expanded over time, largely on the basis of economic need.

Anyway, before you get to the mining versus farming story, I think you can go even more basic and note that Appalachia is a highlands region between two lowlands regions. That feeds into the mining versus farming story, but it also goes to population density, transportation issues, climate, recreational culture, and on and on. This is useful to note because mining versus farming alone doesn't necessarily explain all the socioeconomic effects--after all, lots of poor people have been employed in farming at various points in U.S. history (as indentured servants, sharecroppers, migrant workers, and so on).

All true, however you can look at other mountainous regions and compare. There are poor people in Vermont and New Hampshire for example, but there is a palpable difference. There is not the hopelessness there. In part this is the exploitation story (or lack thereof) at work. Genetics may also have something to do with it.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by stevo6

All true, however you can look at other mountainous regions and compare. There are poor people in Vermont and New Hampshire for example, but there is a palpable difference.

Absolutely, but as these charts demonstrate there is also a big difference just between, say, Northern Appalachia and Central Appalachia. I suspect it has really made a difference if the specific area in question has been more closely connected to the Northeast part of the Atlantic coast.

Genetics may also have something to do with it.

I doubt it. There is little real evidence of genetics playing that kind of role in general (not with populations this large), and in this case you are talking the same basic genetic mix having radically different socioeconomic outcomes depending on where exactly they are located.

[stevo6]

Originally Posted by ki0eh

...The extractive economy has actually advanced northward in the last generation - although underground salt mines have existed for some time, glacial gravels in NY State valleys are being shipped by rail to distant customers now, and the Marcellus Shale extends actually a bit beyond the Federally designated Appalachian border (oddly enough, to Marcellus, in Onondaga County, NY )

As a Syracuse guy I have been wondering what the connection to Marcellus might be!
I am less familiar with the lay of the land on the other end of the map. I know there is limestone mining in Alabama, but there is also the same in Indiana which is outside of Appalachia. I think Alabama and Mississippi are being lumped in simply for economic reasons. I'm trying to say that there are historical/cultural forces at play in (a smaller version of) Appalachia that are unique.

[slamont61]

It's kind of like saying you live in a Trailer, it has a negative "vibe" built into it.

[BrianTH]

It is definitely overinclusive down South, and I'd also say in the Northwest part (I wouldn't include the parts of Ohio, PA, and NY right up against the Great Lakes).

Roughly speaking, I'd say core Appalachia would be within the Appalachian Plateau, Valley & Ridge, and Blue Ridge Mountains on this map (and maybe not quite all of those):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Appalachian_map.jpg/422px-Appalachian_map.jpg (broken link)

[ki0eh]

Returning to the geology there's also a visual distinction (caused of course by the geology) between Appalachia and non-Appalachian areas. Far southern Illinois certainly had an extractive economy and enough hills to hear the distinction "Illinois Ozarks" but it doesn't seem that too many try to stretch Appalachia to IL.

The Federal Appalachian designation also under-represents parts of VA that had a 1960's Congressman who objected to that distinction, despite more cultural ties.

It's kind of interesting too, to see how little of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail is in Federally defined Appalachia!

[stevo6]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I doubt it. There is little real evidence of genetics playing that kind of role in general (not with populations this large), and in this case you are talking the same basic genetic mix having radically different socioeconomic outcomes depending on where exactly they are located.

What I am suggesting is that in the coal regions, it was an already down and desperate class, baited to come here from Europe, that made up the mining population. Much of the current population of this coal region are the descendants of these people. This is not the case in New England where the population was established without this biased demographic, and where there seems to be more mobility. Admittedly, this may not be a very p.c. position to take.