USA (and parts of Canada and Mexico) regions
 

Came across this theory of North American regions today, and I'm intrigued. It groups based on historical, cultural, political, economic variances (rather than the traditional regions as the Census Bureau defines them).

It looks pretty on point to me, and I think it does a good job of explaining why the debate of which states are part of which region are so unending--some states are part of several regions, and the way we define them officially and the way we define them culturally are so different.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/imag...ba-750-511.jpg


They are from a book by journlaist Colin Woodard. As he explains: Since it's a good arbiter for the variables mentioned (history, culture, politics, economics), look how the regions voted in the 2016 election:

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphic...Artboard_5.png

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/o...-midterms.html

^ i've seen that. its a little bizzare having one region, yankeedom, go around the great lakes like that and the midlands surround it. i would make the great lakes its own region. also, i have heard el norte referred to as la frontera, but whatever. otherwise, its fine.

Looks pretty weird to me. Northern Ohio and Michigan are about as similar as it gets, Long Island gets split in two, LA/IE get split in two.

I mean, Northern Mexico (cowboy Mexico) is the same region as LA, and Inland Empire is the same region as Nebraska? Bizarre.

Austin is in "Greater Appalachia"...?

These maps need more regions to make sense.

"philly, thunder bay, and omaha are all basically in the same region", said no one, ever.


this map is beyond retarded. it's doesn't pass the sniff test.

Omaha and Philadelphia are not part of the same region.

I certainly think "beyond retarded" is a dumb way to look at it, considering there is a definite pattern to the regions as they are defined--plus you apparently aren't even reading it correctly...

well of course i would agree with you,

but according to the retarded map you posted, they are.

they're all in "the midlands" region, which is just plain old absurd.

Here's California, so you can see regional encroachment and how the election went. My county is Far West but went Clinton, so will the counties hold up or change? It ain't the worst theory but I'd like to see more maps.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...s_2016.svg.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U..._in_California

Isn't Appalachia defined by its proximity of the Appalachian Mountains. Has the creator of this map been to Lubbock? New York City, New Jersy and Philly are all very much 'Yankeedom'

^ looks like they are to me.

of course this map isn't perfect, but its alright for vague generalities.

there are worse :D

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9YGKANWwAES0Dk.png

[QUOTE=Handro;8698961]Came across this theory of North American regions today, and I'm intrigued. It groups based on historical, cultural, political, economic variances (rather than the traditional regions as the Census Bureau defines them).

It looks pretty on point to me, and I think it does a good job of explaining why the debate of which states are part of which region are so unending--some states are part of several regions, and the way we define them officially and the way we define them culturally are so different.


They are from a book by journlaist Colin Woodard. As he explains:

Since it's a good arbiter for the variables mentioned (history, culture, politics, economics), look how the regions voted in the 2016 election:


I hate this map because its based off of a Red Team blue team divide.

Both parties are "big tent" meaning the reasons Mormons and evangelicals are "conservative" is not the same reason why Farmers and suburban families are conservative, and the reason College aged urban hipsters are "progressive" is very different from why union workers are "progressive"

These from reddit based on culture/geography are better.

https://i.redd.it/px74awe7gwy11.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/nGBDpMT.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/YHkPQv0.png

Duplicate post

There's a lot of overlap between Upstate NY and New England; particularity eastern NYS and VT, Western Mass, CT and northern NH, etc.

Don't let Newfoundland know it's "Actual Canada". ;)

(Basically Ireland?)

^ thats newfie binnis!

i dk whats worse? the map itself? or the basicallying and actuallying the regions?

Very bizarre.
After seeing some of the southwest in Arizona/New Mexico, I don't know what they have in common, besides a large hispanic population. Once you leave Palm Springs, it just feels different heading east.

http://i.imgur.com/YHkPQv0.png

I really like this one because the color gradients give you regions and sub regions and naturally shows how “different” various regions are from each other

Yes, I do too. If you mix all them colors together though, you get a nice muddy earth color.

The original map is pretty stupid. Greater Appalachia goes into New Mexico, and also seemingly includes Dallas? Why is there one county in northern Iowa that is Yankeedom and is surrounded on three sides by the Midlands? What makes that county so much different? The NYC metro is so distinctive that it is separate from the rest of Yankeedom and New Jersey, but parts of the Dakotas, parts of Colorado, and parts of New Mexico are more similar to parts of New Jersey than NYC?

I live in central Florida and to label it as part of the Deep South is crazy.