Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000
You just described why it is different from the Southeast... by listing those unique-for-the-region demographic characteristics.
|
All that I stated that makes Miami and South Florida unique can also be found in other parts of the Southeast. Atlanta has a growing Afro-Caribbean community as well. Not as high as Miami's, but that's due to the latter's closer proximity to the Caribbean. And the African American culture is present in many big cities in the South, obviously . The Arab population is growing in many other Southeastern cities as well. Aside from the Hispanic influence, not much divides South Florida from other metros in the Southeast.
Quote:
|
South Florida, overall, has very different political, economic, ethnic, cultural histories than the rest of the Southeast. It is a much newer, geographically-isolated section of the Southeast. It is not similar to the rest of the Southeast.
|
That's partly true and ignores a good chunk of history. You do realize that South Florida today as a distinct cultural area from the rest of Florida and the South in general is only very recent? It was not always different, at least right before and a century after the Civil War. It has only became more distinct since the Cuban Missile Crisis and the increase of Northerners coming to live in the Sunbelt. It's also not that geographically isolated. If that's the case, Seattle is geographically isolated as well as Chicago and Denver. What you can say is that Miami has a stronger link to places right outside the country than it does to it's own region. This link isn't new for Florida if you know the history of the state. Maybe it's one reason it's different from the South?
Quote:
|
Atlanta, Charlotte, etc. are NOT different from their greater region. They are the urban archetypes of the Southeast. Miami is not. Get it?
|
I can see that now. But before, it was not the case. And what do you mean by different from the greater regional? When I mentioned that Atlanta and Charlotte were different, I meant that they are more cosmopolitan than their surroundings. Yeah, they represent the Southeast more than Miami. But then again, they are a part of one subregion of the Southeast that I mentioned before. The South is a geographically large area. You have mountains, highlands, rivers, and coastal wetlands with multiple influences. But there is a common Southern culture that is still apparent in all these areas, along with other influences.
Quote:
|
Stop trying to compare Miami to NYC, LA, etc. as similar representatives of their respective regions. NYC is a product of the Northeast, LA is a product of the West Coast, Chicago is a product of the Midwest, Phoenix is a product of the Southwest, Denver is a product of the Mountain West... these cities reflect the influences of the greater regions they anchor. Miami does not.
|
When I mentioned NYC and LA, I wasn't trying to say that South Florida also represents its greater regional like they do. What I did say is that two of the 3 main counties of South Florida ( Broward and Palm Beach) are not that different from other ethnically diverse counties in the US where you have different groups attaining middle class status, diverse restaurant options, etc, like Alameda county in the Bay area, Queens in NYC, Riverside and San Bernardino CA, Harris county in TX, and even Nashville and some of the counties around Atlanta and DC. Yeah, Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach don't represent the rest of Florida very well. But neither does any urbanized area in any state. NYC is similar to NYS and the Northeast, but it's also radically different in its scale and influence. It's so big it influences itself and others beyond Albany, Newark, New Haven, and maybe even Philly.
If Miami is a product of any region today, it's still the South and also the Caribbean/ Latin America and the North. It's the only US city that I can think of that is in close proximity to several different countries. From the very beginning, it was Southern because of the whites and blacks who came to contribute to the tourist economy in the beginning and Northern because of Julia Tuttle and Henry Flagler who wanted to place South Florida on the map for it's unique weather. If the US was not as isolated in the early 20th century, South Florida would have been more Latino/ Caribbean earlier due to being close to Cuba, Bahamas, etc. Even when Florida first became a state, those influences were still there.
Quote:
Those cities fit the bill as archetypes of their respective regions, based on the political/economic/ethnic/cultural/etc. histories of those regions. Miami/S Florida shares very little of that history in common with the greater Southeast. The place barely existed less than a hundred years ago. And then was built literally by Northerners from the Midwest and Northeast as resort locations. Could you say that about Atlanta? How about Charleston? Savannah? Jacksonville? Columbia? Charlotte? No. You can't even say that about Orlando or Tampa.
We don't even have to get into the major demographic differences or functional differences.
|
It's a different history but still the Southern connection is there. Who helped the Northerners build and maintain those resorts in Palm Beach and Miami Beach? Surely not more Northerners who only came to visit. Plus, the tourist economy was not the only industry there. It is a strong industry for the region, but that's for all of Florida and even still the state is a powerhouse in other facets.
But that aside, if South Florida is not part of the Southeast, which region would it be a part of? I don't buy the "New York South" thing because I've been living here most of my life and I barely see that. I can only say that South Florida is where the Eastern US meets Latin America. Take the Southeast, Northeast, and the Caribbean, overlap them, and you get Miami. I'm wondering if the same would be true of parts of California or Texas.
Prev
Linear Mode
