[Louisvilleslugger]

It's a question asked numerous times, But I would like to get this sections take on the issue.

[F-Misthebest]

I personally think it's a southern city. It's over in that weird part of the US. West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri are all states that I'm not sure what region they're in.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Its in the same category as places like Cincinnati and Lexington, straddling the Mason-Dixon line, meaning it has both midwestern and southern influences that create strange bedfellows. A similar argument can be made about St. Louis (southern or midwestern), Pittsburgh (eastern/atlantic or midwestern) and several other cities.

[Louisvilleslugger]

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/baptist.gif

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/dialectsus.gif

[Cincinnatis]

^ What kind of company/site is http://www.uta.fi (source for the images above) ... I can't tell because it's not in English?

Also from their image bank:

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/topsy2.jpg

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/jell-o.jpg

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/images/snacktime.jpg

Hmmm ...

[Buckeye Native 001]

I'm still unsure how the number of Baptists nationwide relate to the thread topic? :shrug:

[Louisvilleslugger]

I'm still unsure how the number of Baptists nationwide relate to the thread topic? :shrug:

Baptist found prodomantly in the South and Missouri. This is a Southern trait that Louisville posses as well as Southern dialect.

[LMich]

Why is their no choice for "both"? I'd say more Southern than Midwest, but still enough of both where I'd definitely call it mixed.

BTW, I think the religious affiliation is a fairly good indicator because more than anything else it reflects a culture. I do think that for the most part the stark cutoff on the map speaks for itself. There is no mistake as to why the largest group of Baptists in this country are called the Southern Baptist Convention.

[Cleveland Brown]

Southern, along with everything else south of Columbus.

[LMich]

Southern, along with everything else south of Columbus.

No, you di'int!

Everything south of Toledo is the South, to me, but I'd never say it on, here. Not with Coldayman still, here. :)

[Buckeye Native 001]

ColDay senses tingling...

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

For the SBC denomination, one of their seminarys is in Louisville.

The city has a lot of Catholics, too....but so does New Orleans. NOLA would probably be a good comparison city.

Having lived in Louisville, moving there from Chicago, Louisville seemed pretty southern to me. A lot more Dixie this and Dixie that.

Plus the southern accent (though some native Louisvillians sort of have their own accent that is less drawly, but not like Ohio talk)

[kcexpress69]

This sounds really stupid, but I always looked at Louisville as a "River City". It seems to have more in common with cities such as St. Louis, Cincinatti, Memphis, and New Orleans. Even if the cities I just named have their own personality, I never really considered Louisville to be southern. :D

[ColDayMan]

Oh, come on kids. I've been on this bitch for 10 years and you think a little irking by some newbies and LMich are going to provoke the Legendary, Incomparable Me? Don't you know who the HELL I am?

With that said, everything north of Polaris Fashion Place might as well be Siberia for Fat, Ugly White People and Black People Shipped From Alabama. Meaning, Flint.

[hudkina]

But what about Taylor, MI? It's the most Ohio-esque place in Michigan.;)

[Xing]

A similar argument can be made about St. Louis (southern or midwestern)

uh... no. St. Louis is not southern.

[ColDayMan]

But what about Taylor, MI? It's the most Ohio-esque place in Michigan.;)

So it has a Skyline Chili and a Mr. Heroes? ;)

[SuburbanNation]

uh... no. St. Louis is not southern.

The City and County isn't, cause they are filled with African Americans whos families came here to work in factories, and is dominated by bitchy Catholics who sometimes have a nasally accent. Theres not a lot of white folks who go to Baptist church around here.

However, all you have to do is go down to the Big River gravel beaches on a hot Saturday only one half hour south of Gravois @ the River des Peres and there is no question you are in the south. Or, drive an hour north to the towns outside of Springfield, IL, and you'll hear southern-like accents. St. Louis as whole, in my opinion, is very Mid-Atlanticy as opposed to straight Northern Rustbelt, with a core eerily similar in some ways to Baltimore or parts of D.C more than Cleveland or Detroit, and outlying areas reminiscent of DelMarVa and Northern VA region.

[Jasoncw]

http://www.schlicken.com/schlickenhomefrontpagepics/soft_drink_names.jpg

I think this map is insightful.

[hudkina]

Another clue that Indianapolis is a southern city in disguise.;)

[SuburbanNation]

In the Midwest, soda seems to correspond with areas very heavily influenced by German ancestry I see (with notable exceptions). St. Louis is where 7up came from, so why would you ask for a "Coke" when you want a 7up or various flavor of VESS?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Vess_orange_whistle_soda.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Vess_orange_whistle_soda.jpg

[Evergrey]

re: soda/pop/coke map

I actually do think the usage of the term "coke" aligns rather closely with "The South" (Indy included)... though the pop/soda divide is largely a legacy of Faygo's traditional market territory.
...

essentially, the rather unbroken bloc of red Baptist counties is "The South"...

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif

[SuburbanNation]

re: soda/pop/coke map

I actually do think the usage of the term "coke" aligns rather closely with "The South" (Indy included)... though the pop/soda divide is largely a legacy of Faygo's traditional market territory.
...

makes sense, i don't know that i've ever seen faygo around here. sundrop, yes.

[hudkina]

The reason Milwaukee and St. Louis don't say "pop" is because those two cities were dominated by local brands. The word pop spread only as far as Faygo was traditionally distributed. Obviously Faygo never really grew into the St. Louis or Milwaukee markets.

[Cincinnatis]

So, Chicago says "pop"?

http://www.schlicken.com/schlickenhomefrontpagepics/soft_drink_names.jpg


BTW, what is www.schlicken.com?

[kcexpress69]

So if they say the word Coke in Louisville while holding a pop other than Coke, does that make them Southerners?? :haha: :jester: :lmao:

[hudkina]

It's no different than blowing your nose with a "Kleenex", or cleaning out your ear with a "Q-Tip".

[Steely Dan]

So, Chicago says "pop"?

having lived here all of my life, "pop" is heard most often in chicago, though you'll also hear many people also refer to it as "soda" or even the occasional "soft drink". until i started posting on this forum, i had never realized that there is such a strong, and at times fierce, rivalry between the various groups in this nation that use different words to generically describe a non-alcoholic carbonated beverage. in chicago it just ain't that big of a deal to us, we use any of the words we feel like using and no one seems to care or notice. i myself say "pop", "soda", and "soft drink", though i can offer no explanation as to why i would use one over the other in any given situation (pop/soda are more informal, like at a hot dog stand, whereas "soft drink" is more formal, like at a nice sit-down restaurant). they all seem completely normal and natural to me. it seems that in other areas of the country, people actually care about what word one uses to describe such beverages. it all seems very silly to me.

the one thing you won't hear in chicago is use of the word "coke" to generically refer to all carbonated soft drinks like they do in the south. if you ask for a "coke" in chicago, you're gonna get coca-cola, or the person will say "we don"t have coke, is pepsi ok?"



as for the thread topic, my general impressions are that louisville is maybe a bit more southern than midwestern, but in reality it's definitely a hybrid of the two regions, as would be expected given it's geography and history. on the flip side, cincinnati also strikes me as a bit of a hybrid, thoough it seems more nothern than southern. i guess it really does all come down to which side of the ohio river one happens to be on.

[Louisvilleslugger]

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/phono_atlas/NationalMap/NatMap1.GIF

http://www.acoustics.org/press/147th/map.jpg

[Cincinnatis]

. on the flip side, cincinnati also strikes me as a bit of a hybrid, thoough it seems more nothern than southern. i guess it really does all come down to which side of the ohio river one happens to be on.

Yes, there is a hybrid ... it's called east (soda) and west (pop) side Cincinnati. lol.

[Xing]

In the Midwest, soda seems to correspond with areas very heavily influenced by German ancestry I see (with notable exceptions). St. Louis is where 7up came from, so why would you ask for a "Coke" when you want a 7up or various flavor of VESS?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Vess_orange_whistle_soda.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6e/Vess_orange_whistle_soda.jpg

I'm not so sure about that. This whole country is mostly German.

Chicago also has a huuuge number of people of German Ancestry. They still say, "pop."

[hudkina]

It's because of Faygo, clear and simple.

[Evergrey]

It's because of Faygo, clear and simple.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/FaygoRedPopcan.jpg/379px-FaygoRedPopcan.jpg

[SuburbanNation]

Chicago also has a huuuge number of people of German Ancestry. They still say, "pop."

I agree, I was jumping to conclusions, and my idea was stupid. ( I am also aware of massive amounts of Germans who went to Chicago, per my 'notable exceptions.') In any case, my guess is that Chicago is more diverse in its massive flood of humans than Milwaukee or St. Louis as far as late 19th early 20th century European ancestry. But obviously, this is a brand deal. Anyway, SODAH, or even SODEE as ive heard around Hartford, Wood River, or Edwardsville is just is the right thing to call SODA as far as i'm concerned.

[SuburbanNation]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/FaygoRedPopcan.jpg/379px-FaygoRedPopcan.jpg


http://www.lovemarks.com/media/image/vess_soda_html.jpg

SODA

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/24/Vess_soda_4cans.jpg

soda

DONT BE AFRAID TO SAY IT!

[hudkina]

Pop was invented in Detroit, and since we call it pop here, then pop is the most correct way of saying it.;)

[Buckeye Native 001]

Does Faygo still make that chocolate-flavored soda? You used to be able to get that pretty much anywhere in Cincinnati.

[STLtoSA]

Its all Dr. Pepper Down here!

When I met my wife, at the University of Missouri, she said coke. And when I moved down here I found out that that is just the way it is.

But about the topic: I voted for south, but I have to agree that it is a mix. It is one of those buffer cities. It historically has a lot of ties with midwestern cities upstream, but its major geographical identity seems to be southern.

St. Louis is not southern. You can find rednecks, kickers, hoosiers, etc in most cities. It just happens to be that St. Louis is surrounded by the lot of them. People who are not from St. Louis see "Missourah" and think that the state is this back wards place.

But people from the area, as well as Kansas City, know that it has been a historical struggle with "Missourah." In Missouri its "Missourah" values vs. City values (aka. South vs. North)

[hudkina]

Kansas City and St. Louis may not be southern cities, but everything else about Missouri is "southern".;)

[st steven]

Is this thread more "stupid" or "dumb"?

Please. Discuss.

[Evergrey]

take note of Missourah
http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif

[JivecitySTL]

Kansas City and St. Louis may not be southern cities, but everything else about Missouri is "southern".;)

I would agree that the southern influences in outstate Missouri are undeniable, but this is truly a chameleon state that draws from its surroundings. Southern MO may as well be Arkansas. Western MO may as well be Kansas, northern MO may as well be Iowa, and eastern MO may as well be Illinois. The two big cities are as different from each other as any two major cities in the country. Missouri is very interesting, and I would agree that without STL and KC, the state is pretty much backwater. But again, that's not so much a Missouri thing as it is an urban vs. rural thing. It has been said that Pennsylvania is "Philadelphia to the east, Pittsburgh to the west, and Alabama in between."

I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the rural portions of any state in the Midwest are any "better" than rural Missouri. Bumpkin is bumpkin.

[kcexpress69]

Is this thread more "stupid" or "dumb"?

Please. Discuss.

Well, it started off as a discussion about Louisville and weather or not it's southern. But now, we're all over the place talking about "pop" or "soda", and everything else but Louisville!! :shrug:

[hudkina]

I would say that the rural aspect of the upper midwest is different from the rural aspect of Missouri as well as southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. While I'm not arguing one is better than the other, there clearly is a difference.

For example, I would venture if you were randomly placed in the least populated counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as well as Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, you would be able to tell the difference between them.

It's like the difference between the rural Mountain West and the rural Deep South.

[hudkina]

Well, it started off as a discussion about Louisville and weather or not it's southern. But now, we're all over the place talking about "pop" or "soda", and everything else but Louisville!! :shrug:

We're talking about where the line is between northern and southern culture, and whether there is a "line" at all. Vernacular, religion, accents, etc. are all clues to help determine where such a line would be drawn and whether it would be north or south of Louisville. It's not really "all over the place"...

[kcexpress69]

I would agree that the southern influences in outstate Missouri are undeniable, but this is truly a chameleon state that draws from its surroundings. Southern MO may as well be Arkansas. Western MO may as well be Kansas, northern MO may as well be Iowa, and eastern MO may as well be Illinois. The two big cities are as different from each other as any two major cities in the country. Missouri is very interesting, and I would agree that without STL and KC, the state is pretty much backwater. But again, that's not so much a Missouri thing as it is an urban vs. rural thing. It has been said that Pennsylvania is "Philadelphia to the east, Pittsburgh to the west, and Alabama in between."

I think you'd be hard-pressed to say that the rural portions of any state in the Midwest are any "better" than rural Missouri. Bumpkin is bumpkin.

:previous: I think Jivecity said it best about the way Missouri is set up. There is no line that defines where Missouri should be. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about Louisville, but the state of Kentucky. From the Ohio river to the Tennessee line there is a gradual change of North to South as far as culture is concerned. Same with West Virginia (Which I have many family members.) They all have southern accents, but posess more northeastern lifestyles even if the state is mostly rural. As far as Missouri goes, you couldn't put the line at the state's boarders. The Western part is as different as the eastern part, as the northern part is different from the southern part. In a way, it's kind of like Texas in that regard. :frog: As far as Louisville goes, if you have to draw a line, it would be somewhere south of there. That's my two cents. I'm gonna go drink a POP!!!

[Evergrey]

Same with West Virginia. They all have southern accents, but posess more northeastern lifestyles even if the state is mostly rural.

:tup:

[ColDayMan]

I would say that the rural aspect of the upper midwest is different from the rural aspect of Missouri as well as southern Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. While I'm not arguing one is better than the other, there clearly is a difference.

For example, I would venture if you were randomly placed in the least populated counties in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, as well as Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, you would be able to tell the difference between them.

It's like the difference between the rural Mountain West and the rural Deep South.

I'd agree to "accent changes" as New Hope, Indiana probably has a difference accent than, say, Marquette, Michigan. But both I'm willing to bet our quite "bumpkin" overall (as Jive put it) and really the only difference in rural mentality is probably a religious variance and accent. As a black man, I'd be just as scared going to rural-ass southern Illinois as rural-ass northern Minnesota.

[LMich]

Not sure I agree, and it has to do with history and ingrained attitudes and views of the world. Not all rural areas are the same in their worldviews, and the change in Christian denomination can mean a lot in how they view and treat outsiders. I'd personally feel more welcomed/safer in the rural parts of conservative West Michigan than I would in the rural parts of a state dominated by say Southern Baptists, and it has to do with the difference cultural values flavored by the respective denominations. For me, the religious denomination map has always rang the most true in marking the differences in culture between regions which you can almost literally draw a line through.

[ColDayMan]

For me, any sort of heavy religious community, whether it be backwater Tennessee or backwater Wisconsin, scares the living shit out of me. Rural, homogenous, white communities approach "us" (re: black) in different ways yet there's always that "something" in the back of "our" minds that something ain't right. I don't care if they are southern Baptist (as they are more blatantly honest about their approach on race) or Minnesota Lutheran (who woud invite you to their dinner party yet not ask you to come to their daughter's wedding), it's all the same rural intolerance for me. That isn't to say I don't trust smaller towns anywhere, I just have some experiences in all regions of the country where I can safely say they generally all follow the same pattern. Try rural Washington State...you'd be crying to come take a visit to Opelika, Alabama after seven days.

[hudkina]

I think a lot of that comes from your own head, at least in terms of race. I could say I feel the same way in many of Detroit's neighborhoods (where black people account for over 90% of the population) Anybody who might see themselves as being "outside" their environment will feel that unease, but that doesn't mean that it is warranted. Granted I'm sure much of the time it is.

But in any case, not all areas that are 99% white are 99% racist...

[ColDayMan]

I think a lot of that comes from your own head, at least in terms of race.

Apparently your head didn't read the part where I said: "That isn't to say I don't trust smaller towns anywhere, I just have some experiences..."

I could say I feel the same way in many of Detroit's neighborhoods (where black people account for over 90% of the population) Anybody who might see themselves as being "outside" their environment will feel that unease, but that doesn't mean that it is warranted. Granted I'm sure much of the time it is.

Not arguing that. I'm simply stating why I feel there is no difference for me in rural northern Michigan vs. rural southern Georgia.

But in any case, not all areas that are 99% white are 99% racist...

Never did I say that. When I said "Rural, homogenous, white communities approach "us" (re: black) in different ways yet there's always that "something" in the back of "our" minds that something ain't right," that is just a generalization in my experience with blacks towards small white towns, regardless of region. Hell, I'm sure the experience of a white person in small black towns in Louisiana are equally as uncomfortable but shit, that's life.

[LMich]

For me, any sort of heavy religious community, whether it be backwater Tennessee or backwater Wisconsin, scares the living shit out of me. Rural, homogenous, white communities approach "us" (re: black) in different ways yet there's always that "something" in the back of "our" minds that something ain't right. I don't care if they are southern Baptist (as they are more blatantly honest about their approach on race) or Minnesota Lutheran (who woud invite you to their dinner party yet not ask you to come to their daughter's wedding), it's all the same rural intolerance for me. That isn't to say I don't trust smaller towns anywhere, I just have some experiences in all regions of the country where I can safely say they generally all follow the same pattern. Try rural Washington State...you'd be crying to come take a visit to Opelika, Alabama after seven days.

Guess it's just a difference. I do feel and see very real and important distinctions in culture between the religious denominations in this country, even in rural areas.

[ColDayMan]

I'm not saying there aren't distinctions. I'm saying those distinctions aren't distractions from each other in regards to the bigger picture.

[hudkina]

But wouldn't you rather the white people smile to your face and sneer as you walk away?;)

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

This reminds me of those old Gych threads at Skyscrapercity.

The Missouri issue on where to draw that north/south line is fascinating as the part of the state settled by slaveholding southerners (mostly Kentuckians?) was actually the northeast part, Little Dixie.

Traditionally, US 40 (in Illinois, Indiana, & Ohio) was considered the northmost influence of the south.

This changed a bit with the big postwar Appalachian migration, which gave Dayton, Springfield, and the older industrial towns between Dayton and Cincy a more southern appalachian character, sourthernizing those places more.

Xenia, a county seat just east of Dayton, always seemed sort of southern to me, too, sort of an anomaly in Ohio

[Jeff_in_Dayton]

Looking upthread...St Louis has its own regional brand of soda pop?

[ColDayMan]

But wouldn't you rather the white people smile to your face and sneer as you walk away?;)

I just prefer them to VOTE OBAMA! :tup:

[urbanactivistTX]

For the SBC denomination, one of their seminarys is in Louisville.

The city has a lot of Catholics, too....but so does New Orleans. NOLA would probably be a good comparison city.

Having lived in Louisville, moving there from Chicago, Louisville seemed pretty southern to me. A lot more Dixie this and Dixie that.

Plus the southern accent (though some native Louisvillians sort of have their own accent that is less drawly, but not like Ohio talk)

Hmm, but oddly enough you can say the exact same for New Orleans or Houston... inner city folk develop a much "more urbanized" southern accent. Sometimes my friends from New Orleans will talk, and I'll think they're straight off of The Nanny!

Anyway, as a deep Southerner myself (Arkansas), I have to say that Louisville is definitely South... and in some ways feels more Southern than places in southern Missouri or Oklahoma. The Mason-Dixon line is most defined around Kentucky (outside of the Cincy metro)... Everywhere else it seems to blend in, but not there. North of the state line is north, and south of it is SAAAAYOUTH.

[urbanactivistTX]

:previous: I think Jivecity said it best about the way Missouri is set up. There is no line that defines where Missouri should be. Maybe we shouldn't be talking about Louisville, but the state of Kentucky. From the Ohio river to the Tennessee line there is a gradual change of North to South as far as culture is concerned. Same with West Virginia (Which I have many family members.) They all have southern accents, but posess more northeastern lifestyles even if the state is mostly rural. As far as Missouri goes, you couldn't put the line at the state's boarders. The Western part is as different as the eastern part, as the northern part is different from the southern part. In a way, it's kind of like Texas in that regard. :frog: As far as Louisville goes, if you have to draw a line, it would be somewhere south of there. That's my two cents. I'm gonna go drink a POP!!!

Agreed. As someone who has lived in Both KC and Arkansas, Missouri is rough. Some of the most "backwoods" areas of the state are north of St. Louis!! And when you hit I-70 right outside of KC, there's some thick accents there too, which is way above the Ozarks. And Illinois?? I don't think you can get more extreme than the northern and southern half of that state!!

I think the Mississippi River itself helped to feed southern culture up into the Midwest, especially wth Missouri, Illinois, and Kentucky.

[hudkina]

I just prefer them to VOTE OBAMA! :tup:

That's interesting that you say that because many of the counties in Michigan's UP actually voted for Kerry in 2004, including Muskegon. In fact, Bush only won the Upper Peninsula with just 51.5% of the vote. If you take Jackson County (Kansas City), St. Louis County, and St. Louis city out of the Missouri numbers, then Bush won "rural" Missouri with nearly 61% of the vote.

Of the 15 counties that make up Michigan's UP, Bush won only one county with more than 57.1% of the vote and that was Luce County where 61.8% voted for Bush. Of the 115 counties in Missouri, Bush won 90 with more than 57.1% of the vote. In fact, 63 of Missouri's counties (well over half) went to Bush with over 61.8% of the vote.

In 2000, Bush was only able to win the U.P. with just 50.6% of the vote.

If you look at the Governor's race from 2002, Granholm actually won the U.P. with 51.7% of the vote, and actually carried 8 of the 15 counties. In 2006, she did even better with 59.0% of the vote and she carried ALL 15 COUNTIES. In fact she won her "weakest" county with 52.5% of the vote and carried over 60% of the vote in five counties.

While I'm not sure how Obama is tracking in the U.P., he could very well have a chance at winning, though McCain does a better job at representing the type of "Republicans" that live in the U.P. (i.e. individual liberties as opposed to religious.)

[skyline]

I think I'll go have a soda over this one....

[SuburbanNation]

.

[arenn]

As someone who grew up near Louisville, I can tell you that it is clearly the South.

Indiana is definitely interesting on the southern thing. I would say I-70 is the demarcation line between North and South. However, you find southern accents in many parts of the state. I frequently fill up off the SR 10 exit on I-65 and the natives there mostly have noticeable southern accents. That is technically part of the Chicago MSA.

Indianapolis is a special case. I've noticed a dramatic decline in the quantity of southern accents in the last 15 years, and the difference between the north and south sides are amazing. It's taking on more and more the cast of, say, and Atlanta where the Midwest and Southern accents exist side by side in sort of parallel societies. One difference between Indy and Louisville. Talk to part of the upper classes of Indy (business execs, artists, people with college degrees and so on) and it is 75+% people without a southern accent. In Louisville, it is 85+% with.

Oddly enough, I tend to say "soft drink"