JayN posted this in the "Generations in Light of 911" thread but I think it more properly belongs here.

I've always wondered in the 1901-1905 cohorts that SnH placed as GI's were really very late wave Lost. That seems more plausible to me. It also seems like GI's may have been born a little past 1924. Maybe 1925 or 1926 since so many of those cohorts participated in battles and weren't just packed home after the bombing of Hiroshima as those born in 1927 and 1928 were.

Does anyone have statistics or any kind of knowledge about 1925 or '26 cohort members that served in World War II and saw battle. I think Private Ryan, if I'm correct, from Saving Private Ryan was Silent by Strauss and Howe's reckoning.

I think that we sometimes get too hung up about getting the exact generational cut-off date. Some 1924 cohorts are very Silent-like (for example, President Jimmy Carter), whereas some 1925 and 1927 cohorts got the whole hero experience in WW II.

Likewise, some 1942 cohorts are very Boomer-like, whereas some 1943 cohorts are very Silent-like.

And there is a huge body of archived posts on whether "Jonesers" (people born in the late fifties and early sixties) are Boomers, Gen-X'ers, or their own separate Generation. Lets face it, some who are born in 1958 will identify more with Gen-X whereas some born in 1962 will feel more like a "Boomer".

Its squishy along the boundary. And there are always people who are completely out of synch with their generational archtype (Nomad-like Silents such as my Mom, for example).

You know, I dont think fighting in WWII makes you a generation or not.
Mid 20s cohorts are children of the depression, regardless of fighting.
They seem very Silentish, people like Jimmy carter, ed koch, marlon brando (all 1924 babies)
Lenny Bruce was in WWII, he enlisted as a teen and saw action in the pacific.
But these were definetly adaptive characters.
Even George Bush I seemed a bit adaptive.

On 2002-02-07 17:49, Susan Brombacher wrote:

(I first started feeling twinges of being "old" at age 21, when my teens were over!)

this brings up an observation of mine-- i've found that many women that i've known rue the passing of their teens; that turning 20 somehow makes them "old". yet most men i have known are more than happy to be out of their teens and into their 20s-- only to feel the same loss the women felt at 20 as they turn 30.

anyone agree/disagree?


TK

I was finally at a comfortable age when I turned fifty. I was always interested in being an adult since I was eight or so; and by the time I was 50, a few more Boomers started acting like adults and I did not seem so alone.


I didn't care for my teens, and turning 20, 30, or 40 wasn't that interesting either...neither sad nor pleasant. I like surviving to the new Century though.

I posted this on another thread, but think it really belongs here too.


On 2002-02-08 21:24, Susan Brombacher wrote:

On 2002-02-08 17:14, Justin'79 wrote:
I think transitions take three years and create three year transitional years of generations that grow more like the next generation until a full cohort is created.
I mean the late fifties to early 60s cohorts, are the same as the late 70s to early 80s cohorts.
I think that the change over to millie began in 1977 and ended in 1981, the last year anyone could really tack on to this Gen X feeling.
I think that The Lost extended to the early 1900s. Even if they didnt serve, their brothers did. 1908 was the big change.
Prohibition.
Then 1910 the Boy scouts were founded, getting the kids that werent adolescent yet.

I agree, generations don't just end on Dec. 31 of one year and start on Jan. 1st of the next. That's just plain ridiculous. Seasons melt into each other; generations are like seasons, not doors that close and shut.

The archetypal generations overlap each other, creating mini-generations in between, which have been recognized sufficently enough by the media to be given names of their own (Gen-Jones, Gen-Y, etc.) While S&H's theory is thought-provoking and brilliant, they completely ignore the idea of these transition zones.

I agree with 1977 (maybe even 1976) as the start of the changeover from X to Millie, but it doesn't become full-blown 100% Hero until 1986 or even '87, not 1981 as Justin says. In fact, 1980-1981 cohorts are about evenly split between the X and Millie mindsets.
As for the changeover from Boomer to X, I'd say 1955 as the earliest start date of the transition (and then accelerates quickly from 1958-1961), but doesn't become full-blown X until 1965 or even '66. 1960-61 is (like 1980-1981 for nomads and heroes) about evenly split between prophets and nomads. My 1960 husband is a great example of this type of hybrid, but I won't elaborate on this now.

Transitions from one generation to the next seem to begin roughly 5 years before the actual (S&H) change, and end roughly 5 years after it. So the "transition zone" is about a decade long, give or take a year. The "core generation" is also a decade long, but could be shorter (1966 to 1976 for Xers, for example).

If we were to chart this transition in the mindset of a "typical" birthyear cohort, we might get something like this:

Boomer --> X --> Millennial:

1947(?) to 1954: Core prophets (100%)
1955: 95% prophet, 5% nomad
1956: 90% prophet, 10% nomad
1957: 80% prophet, 20% nomad
1958: 65% prophet, 35% nomad
1959: 60% prophet, 40% nomad
1960: 50% prophet, 50% nomad
1961: 40% prophet, 60% nomad
1962: 35% prophet, 65% nomad
1963: 20% prophet, 80% nomad
1964: 10% prophet, 90% nomad
1965: 5% prophet, 95% nomad
1966-1975: Core Xers (100% nomad)
1976: 95% nomad, 5% hero
1977: 90% nomad, 10% hero
1978: 80% nomad, 20% hero
1979: 65% nomad, 35% hero
1980: 60% nomad, 40% hero
1981: 50% nomad, 50% hero
1982: 40% nomad, 60% hero
1983: 35% nomad, 65% hero
1984: 20% nomad, 80% hero
1985: 10% nomad, 90% hero
1986: 5% nomad, 95% hero
1987-? core Millennials (100% hero)

What I just noticed in this little exercise is that the first S&H birthyear of an archetypcal generation coincides with same year these percentages exceed the 50% mark for the next archetype. The last year of the last generation is the true 50/50 marker and hence would have the most true hybrids--1960 for Boom-Xers and 1981 for Xer-Millies.

Of course all this does not take into account the fact that each of the four generations contains examples of all four archetypes, but I needed to keep things simple, and I am referring to a "typical" member of a birthyear, if such a thing even exists.

_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-02-08 22:03 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-02-09 00:18 ]</font>

When I looked over Susan Brombacher's of cohort archetypes I also thought of her descriptions of different waves. For example, the Woodstock Boomers are idealistic optimists and Jonesers are pessimistic idealists. Combining the two implies that Jonesers and Anthony's Busters (who would be early Xers-pessimistic pragmatists) could co-exist in the some of the same cohorts. The concept of archetypal core decades would allow these to fit into the S&H paradign.

It appears that the core of one generation is separated from the next by about a dozen years. Could a core have, in effect, a sort of gravitational pull that grows weaker with increasingly distant cohorts? That a core becomes old timers by the time the next core forms?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-02-10 08:54 ]</font>

On 2002-01-30 16:31, Susan Brombacher wrote:
There was there a GI on this board?

Yeah, the people on this board linked once with a seniors group and one very GI-like GI who came to post was Gene Girard.

As for Millennial, I'd say Robert Reed is the most S&Hish

I think Michael Eliason sounds even more like S&H (plus he's much more consistent). As for Robert Reed, wasn't he an outcast during his school days who was very miserable from not fitting in? An S&H Hero would have to be one of the teamworkers -- certainly not one of the very small outcast group. But then again, this "Hero" thing is all very theoretical and the ideas of what Whatever Comes After X should be like come from predictions and observations back in 1991. Even the birthdate boundary was set back when the book was written and hasn't been changed. Hey, back in 1991, a 1982 cohort was only a maximum of 9 years old!

You don't think there are some arguably "Prophet" types out there born after '65? Jimmy Kimmel was born in '67 - and no way he is a "pure" Xer! And neither is San Francisco politician Gavin Newsom, another '67 cohort and the subject of an earlier post made by me on this thread. And the late Timothy McVeigh, a '68 cohort, seemed to me at least pretty moralistic and judgmental (believing in the existence of a "Zionist Occupation Government" under the ultimate dominion of Lucifer!). Also, Eric Rudolph, the nation's most wanted abortion-clinic bomber, was born in 1966.

The bottom line is that the Baby Busters are the generational equivalent of the "Border States" between the North and the South; more specifically, the 1958-60 cohort group is just like the state of Missouri, which the government and USA Today insist is a Midwestern state despite its overwhelmingly Southern traditions that have endured even in very recent times (examples: Missouri has never celebrated Lincoln's birthday and Jim Crow was practiced in the state right up until the mid-'60s - and go spend two weeks in Branson and then come back and tell me that you were in the Midwest! In addition, Missouri has one of the toughest "sodomy laws" in the country, punishing consensual gay sex by up to 15 years in prison); whereas the 1966-68 cohorts more closely resemble Kentucky, a state more or less universally considered part of the South today, yet tried to remain "neutral" during the Civil War and was, in fact, the state where Lincoln was born! (In this analogy "the South" being the Nomad archetype, or Generation X).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-02-10 07:37 ]</font>

I agree with that transition percentage table; when it passes 50% is when the social groupings seem to change as the majority tends to dominate the scene (50-50 would lean towards the older group because young kids tend to look up towards older kids); actually the very nomadic nature of nomads would allow them to persist for a longer period of time (e.g. until 87-88) in noticeable numbers against VAST majorities. However, as a Marylander I must disagree with Anthony's notion that Missouri is a Southern (as opposed to Midwestern) state; though it has Southern traditions (especially the southern part of it), it was historically part of the frontier; being wedged between two decidedly midwestern states by the names of Illinois and Kansas (with the nearly as midwestern Kentucky also contributing a little) and having a climate that is extreme as per the midwest instead of 50-95 as in the south. I'm sure all you actual midwesterners will blast me for this, but this is just my observation as a marylander.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tim Walker on 2002-02-19 22:57 ]</font>

Given that a generation can be so blurry around the edges, I'm beginning to think that turnings are more important to the paradign than generational archetypes. Consider-in the older, longer saeculae a turning would star two adult generations. Now it stars three. But the basic pattern of turnings continues. And that the cycle rebounded from the Civil War and Potato Famine anomalies reinforces this notion.

In my humble opinion, Missouri is a "Midlands" state. It's not Midwestern and it's not Southern. This region has a culture all of its own, in part defined by a rambunctious frontier culture and by the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and by farming. The people aren't quite as genteel as southerners but aren't as phony, either. They'll be more than glad to give you their opinion, but are usually somewhat friendlier, more trusting, and less pushy than inhibitants of the Northeast corridor. Their main religion is football, unlike many places in the South where it is basketball.

The "Midlands" include southern Indiana, southern Ohio, southern Illinois, a good bit of Kentucky. Some of it might include far western Tennessee, and a band of Midlands might reach as far as southwestern Penn or northern Arkansas.

Midlands speech is kind of countryish (water is pronounced "wartar" and bear is pronounced "bar") but not exactly a slow Southern drawl, either. They like to pronounce "r's."

Well there ya go.

On 2002-02-10 01:45, Jesse Manoogian wrote:


I think Michael Eliason sounds even more like S&H (plus he's much more consistent). As for Robert Reed, wasn't he an outcast during his school days who was very miserable from not fitting in? An S&H Hero would have to be one of the teamworkers -- certainly not one of the very small outcast group. But then again, this "Hero" thing is all very theoretical

To be honest, I am not that familiar with Michael Eliason's posts so you may be right. Seems to me he used to post a lot more and then sort of disappeared.

Robert Reed may well have been an outcast in school (as most INTs usually are), but that doesn't make him less Heroic. The way I see it, in youth there are two types of Heroes: the S&H soldier-like type, and the anarchist type, which attempt to break down what's left of the old saeculum. In midlife and later, Heroes become the good citizens and heroes (like WW2 heroes), but they also include the visionaries, like Arthur C. Clarke or Jack Kerouac. I think Mr. Reed is one of these latter type.

On 2002-02-10 10:38, jcarson71 wrote:
In my humble opinion, Missouri is a "Midlands" state. It's not Midwestern and it's not Southern. This region has a culture all of its own, in part defined by a rambunctious frontier culture and by the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and by farming. The people aren't quite as genteel as southerners but aren't as phony, either. They'll be more than glad to give you their opinion, but are usually somewhat friendlier, more trusting, and less pushy than inhibitants of the Northeast corridor. Their main religion is football, unlike many places in the South where it is basketball.

The "Midlands" include southern Indiana, southern Ohio, southern Illinois, a good bit of Kentucky. Some of it might include far western Tennessee, and a band of Midlands might reach as far as southwestern Penn or northern Arkansas.

Midlands speech is kind of countryish (water is pronounced "wartar" and bear is pronounced "bar") but not exactly a slow Southern drawl, either. They like to pronounce "r's."

Well there ya go.

As a Missourian, I'll add my thoughts.

For all practicality, Missouri is at the dead center of the nation. As a result, Missouri has a very mixed culture. St. Louis has elements of both a Southern and North Eastern city. It has sprawl similar to the eastern cities largely because St. Louis is a relatively old city. St. Louis was always an industrial center, and that made its culture similar to the cities such as Chicago, Detroit, Philly, etc. Like these cities, St. Louis was hit very hard with the 1970s recession. St. Louis is one city that received a lot of African American immigrants from the South, and therefore, has a slightly southern flavor as well. The southern and northern cultures can be roughly divided by I-70. St. Louis, Columbia, and Kansas City lay right on this line. Southern Missouri shares many of the cultural elements of the Southern states, while Northern Missouri is Yankeeland. In the west, Kansas City is more reminiscent of a western city, like Los Angeles, Seattle, Denver, etc.

I agree that Missouri as many "country" elements, as you will notice if you have ever driven to Branson. Missouri as a whole is usually termed "cow state". More than 80% of the state population resides in either the KC metro area, or the STL metro area.

On 2002-02-10 10:38, jcarson71 wrote:

In my humble opinion, Missouri is a "Midlands" state. It's not Midwestern and it's not Southern. This region has a culture all of its own, in part defined by a rambunctious frontier culture and by the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers and by farming. The people aren't quite as genteel as southerners but aren't as phony, either. They'll be more than glad to give you their opinion, but are usually somewhat friendlier, more trusting, and less pushy than inhibitants of the Northeast corridor. Their main religion is football, unlike many places in the South where it is basketball.

The "Midlands" include southern Indiana, southern Ohio, southern Illinois, a good bit of Kentucky. Some of it might include far western Tennessee, and a band of Midlands might reach as far as southwestern Penn or northern Arkansas.

Midlands speech is kind of countryish (water is pronounced "wartar" and bear is pronounced "bar") but not exactly a slow Southern drawl, either. They like to pronounce "r's."

Well there ya go.

Jon, it looks like all you are really doing is going by the linguistics chart. If I remember this correctly, there are four major American language families: Northern, Midland, Highland Southern, and Lowland or Coastal Southern. Northern spreads west to the Great Lakes from New England where the speech of eastern England had the heaviest influence. Midland spreads west from Pennsylvania and New Jersey where the speech of the English Midlands had the greatest influence (and Midland ultimately fans out to include most of the mountain West). Highland Southern spreads west from the upper piedmont of Virginia (and Maryland?), North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia where settlers were predominately Scots-Irish. Lowland or Coastal Southern encompasses the coastal plain and most of the lower piedmont from Virginia (and some in Maryland) all the way around to south Texas, and the speech of the south and west of England (the Westcountry) had the greatest influence here.

The border between Midland and Highland Southern very roughly follows the Ohio River. I want to say that some linguists consider northern Kentucky (as well as northern and western West Virginia) to be Midland, i.e. with the border south of the river, while others consider southern Indiana and Illinois to be Highland Southern, i.e. with at least part of the border north of the river. Obviously one dialect flows into the other at the border so it is a judgment call where one dialect passes the baton of dominance to the other. However I believe that most of Missouri is generally considered Highland Southern by all linguists. Once we get to Kansas, I believe that Highland Southern is confined to the eastern edge and southeastern corner as Midland (originating in PA/NJ) fans out to include almost the entirety of the upper plains and mountain West.

From your description, it sounds like you are characterizing Missouri as Highland Southern rathern than Midland, at least in linguistic terms. This corresponds to the swath of territory over which predominately Scots-Irish settlers migrated. It is the Scots-Irish who give us "bar" for bear (Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett: "Ah done shot a bar"). Remnants of the original accent are sufficiently preserved in parts of east Tennessee and north Georgia that cook and book still rhyme with kook, i.e. cook book = kook boo-k. The people would tend to be more open and friendly than those further South, as you suggest, since the Scots-Irish were less hierarchical and more egalitarian than the English. They were the firebrands of liberty, the saviors of American independence, and the prime distillers of corn mash. Let's hear it for the Whiskey Rebellion!

On 2002-02-10 10:01, mmailliw wrote:
I agree with that transition percentage table; when it passes 50% is when the social groupings seem to change as the majority tends to dominate the scene (50-50 would lean towards the older group because young kids tend to look up towards older kids); actually the very nomadic nature of nomads would allow them to persist for a longer period of time (e.g. until 87-88) in noticeable numbers against VAST majorities. However, as a Marylander I must disagree with Anthony's notion that Missouri is a Southern (as opposed to Midwestern) state; though it has Southern traditions (especially the southern part of it), it was historically part of the frontier; being wedged between two decidedly midwestern states by the names of Illinois and Kansas (with the nearly as midwestern Kentucky also contributing a little) and having a climate that is extreme as per the midwest instead of 50-95 as in the south. I'm sure all you actual midwesterners will blast me for this, but this is just my observation as a marylander.

Speaking of Maryland, I am curious how Marylanders see themselves and their culture. From what I've read, both Maryland and Delaware were considered Southern states prior to the Civil War. However it seems that most Americans consider Maryland, and definitely Delaware, to be part of the Northeast today. This is probably because they didn't secede from the Union during the war, which would have cut off Washington D.C. from the Union. (This is the opposite of Kentucky, which is generally considered Southern today, whereas initially considered part of the Midwest).

My personal observations suggest that Eastern Maryland, including the Baltimore and D.C. areas are very Northern, however the mountainous West of Maryland has a decidedly Southern flavor.

Different scholars have attempted to describe and map different regions. Their maps are not all alike. Consider-a region may include subregions, such as Louisana in the South. And some areas, such as part of West Virginia, may have alternative affiliations. If one were to combine different maps the total number of regions could form a sizable number of political units.

On 2002-02-10 19:59, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

Speaking of Maryland, I am curious how Marylanders see themselves and their culture. From what I've read, both Maryland and Delaware were considered Southern states prior to the Civil War. However it seems that most Americans consider Maryland, and definitely Delaware, to be part of the Northeast today. This is probably because they didn't secede from the Union during the war, which would have cut off Washington D.C. from the Union. (This is the opposite of Kentucky, which is generally considered Southern today, whereas initially considered part of the Midwest).

My personal observations suggest that Eastern Maryland, including the Baltimore and D.C. areas are very Northern, however the mountainous West of Maryland has a decidedly Southern flavor.

The Maryland Eastern Shore has always been Southern although the demographics have been changing considerably over recent decades. There are three counties in Delaware and the northernmost, New Castle, was settled predominately by Quakers (along with the original Swedes, Dutch, and Finns) and had much more in common with Pennsylvania and southern New Jersey (and extreme northeastern Maryland) from the beginning. In fact Delaware was originally part of William Penn's grant. The southernmost county is Sussex and that was traditionally Southern and probably still is to an extent even with changing demographics. The middle county is Kent and I believe it may have been Southern originally however it probably has more of a Northern flavor today. I doubt that you hear a Southern accent any further north than Sussex County today and perhaps not even there.

Much of the Western Shore of Maryland south of Washington is considered "redneck" today so you might say that it is still marginally Southern. Both Baltimore and Washington were originally Southern cities but seem thoroughly Northern today. The piedmont north and west of Washington and Baltimore was traditionally Southern and I believe that Roger Taney of Dred Scot fame hailed from that area (as well as John Marshall). Even so, I suspect that this area was a mixed bag since it was heavily settled by Germans who very often did not participate in the slave economy. There were Scots-Irish further to the west in the mountains so you might consider that area Highland Southern although this was a different culture than the Lowland Southern one around Chesapeake Bay. I am not sure what those Maryland panhandlers (is this the right term?) sound like today but I doubt that it is Southern.

On 2002-02-10 10:01, mmailliw wrote:

However, as a Marylander I must disagree with Anthony's notion that Missouri is a Southern (as opposed to Midwestern) state; though it has Southern traditions (especially the southern part of it), it was historically part of the frontier; being wedged between two decidedly midwestern states by the names of Illinois and Kansas (with the nearly as midwestern Kentucky also contributing a little) and having a climate that is extreme as per the midwest instead of 50-95 as in the south. I'm sure all you actual midwesterners will blast me for this, but this is just my observation as a marylander.

Southern culture seems to have persisted as far north as the climate rendered slavery profitable. Where the growing season diminished to the point of precluding cultivation of staple crops, the overall presence of slavery and of Southern culture vanished. The northern limit of Southern culture probably corresponds to the northern limit of tobacco cultivation. I suspect that this line was the 39th parallel, generally speaking. (Our yeoman farmer, Virgil, might have more precise data.)

Along the milder seaboard, Southern culture edged up toward the 40th parallel. In the more extreme interior, it probably edged down toward the 38th parallel. I suspect that Kansas was doomed as a slave state for two physical reasons:

1) That northern limit of profitable slavery probably edged far enough south to preclude most of the state.

2) Kansas settlers immediately crossed the 30 inch rainfall line beyond which irrigation was necessary.

As a result, we see that the Southern Highland speech pattern is confined to the exteme eastern edge of Kansas today -- and so is Southern culture. The state is overwhelmingly Midland -- and midwestern -- in character today.

You describe Missouri as being midwestern because it borders Illinois. However recall the Lincoln-Douglas debates and how the candidates played to the audience in southern Illinois. Illinois was a divided state culturally. The extreme southern portion would have been slave had the political boundaries been drawn differently. Ditto for extreme southern Indiana. Extreme southern Ohio might be included as well. Recall that these were your Copperhead strongholds.

The fact is that Missouri is, and always has been, both Northern and Southern. In the past, Southern culture dominated. However given changing demographics, it might be fair to say that Northern culture dominates today.
Regardless, it remains a border state divided between North and South.

They grew tobacco in Connecticut and Wisconsin for cigar wrapper under gauze...it did not make them part of Dixie.


Southern Illinois (Egypt) is part of the South as far as culture goes. Northern Missouri is just a warmer Iowa as far as I could tell from what they would show me. HTH

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-02-10 22:19 ]</font>

On 2002-02-10 21:49, Virgil K. Saari wrote:

They grew tobacco in Connecticut and Wisconsin for cigar wrapper under gauze...it did not make them part of Dixie.

This would be an inferior variety of tobacco, correct? I would imagine that the profitable variety could not be grown further north than about the 39th parallel. Otherwise people would have been growing it and bringing in slaves. Or is this incorrect?

You mean to say that the Midwest is apparently considered part of the North? I remember learning about four geographic regions back in elementary school social studies: the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, and the West (Maryland was alternately placed between the Northeast and the South depending on the teacher's personal preference). I never really saw myself as particularly Southern or Northern (where I REALLY want to live is California); however, after spending the last five months or so in New England I know I am decidedly NOT a New Englander; I'd probably place my location (Howard County; between Baltimore and DC) as a little too south for the mid-atlantic region but a little too north for the mainstream south (using about as wishy-washy answer as I can get)

Looks like I really stepped into a land mine here! All I was trying to do with yesterday's post is to get the idea out there that a certain series of birth cohorts has both prominent "Boomer" and "13er" features - the 1958-68 cohorts generally, and the 1958-60 cohorts in particular.

Anyway, the way the Census Bureau divides the Southern states is all wrong! Their divisions are:

South Atlantic: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

East South Central: Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi.

West South Central: Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas.

A far more logical division would be:

Border States: Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia (included strictly for geographical convenience), West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

Middle South: Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Texas.

Deep South: South Carolina, Georgia, Florida (now of course an anomaly from a social and cultural standpoint - but where else are you going to put it?), Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

And more on Missouri: When Jackie Robinson broke baseball's color barrier, the ugliest incidents of fan heckling etc. took place when the Dodgers had to play in St. Louis, where, among other things, the stands were racially segregated by law! And while it is true that Irish, and even more so German, immigrants have made a definite mark on the state's character in recent generations, Southern influence remains strong, as evidenced today by John Ashcroft, among others (and unlike most Midwestern states, Missouri does have the death penalty - its lethal-injection chamber is located at the state prison in Potosi).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-02-11 06:21 ]</font>

On 2002-02-10 21:37, Stonewall Patton wrote:
Southern culture seems to have persisted as far north as the climate rendered slavery profitable. Where the growing season diminished to the point of precluding cultivation of staple crops, the overall presence of slavery and of Southern culture vanished. The northern limit of Southern culture probably corresponds to the northern limit of tobacco cultivation. I suspect that this line was the 39th parallel, generally speaking. (Our yeoman farmer, Virgil, might have more precise data.)

Actually, the mean temperature of the coldest month (usually January) is a bigger issue than the length of the growing season (the number of consecutive frost-free days which can be anticipated). The "magic number" here is 6 degrees Celsius (42.8 Fahrenheit), the minimum temperature at which year-round plant growth can occur. At the Atlantic coast, the 6 degrees C. coldest-month isotherm is virtually right at the Virginia-North Carolina border; then it moves diagonally southwestward, barely grazing the northernmost corner of South Carolina, then skims through the northern margins of Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, then across the river into southern Arkansas (Little Rock is north of the line). In Texas, the line runs between Dallas and the Red River, which forms the Texas-Oklahoma border; then runs along the stem of the Texas panhandle and meets the Rio Grande at El Paso, where the average January temperature is exactly 6.0 C. This line follows, very closely, the northern limit of cotton cultivation, and also (in coastal areas) where the hardiest palm trees can survive.

While tobacco was also a crop where slaves were untilized, it can actually be cultivated anywhere snow doesn't stay on the ground for a fixed period of time each winter - and for that a coldest-month mean temperature of -3 degrees Celsius (26.6 Fahrenheit) or colder is necessary. Tobacco farms exist as far north as Connecticut (although the number of varieties that can be grown at the northern edge of the zone is rather limited). Bet you didn't know that.

_________________
"An insult unpunished is the parent of many others" - John Jay

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Anthony '58 on 2002-02-11 02:01 ]</font>