Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Newnan

hey all you yankees, listen up!

Recommended Posts

THis is for everybody who doesn't live in the south: Okay, I'm sure all of you have heard of big ciites in the south Like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte, and New Orleans :cry: , But do you still think that the south is still mainly rural? Besides that, what do you think of us? i'd like to hear your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


im currently living in the south, im from san francisco and i think its a great area. Granted some people here (upstate south carolina) act like they didnt get the memo the civil war is over (joke :P ). It is a nice area, i like atlanta a lot, seems like the south has a ton of potential and seems to be growing into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion of the South is neutral, I used to think that the south was almost entirely a bunch of hicks but I've now realized that there are plenty of large cities, with "city people." I still think that most of the smaller cities are still much more rural and detached than cities of comparible size in the north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pennsylvania has been described as Pittsburgh and Philly with Alabama in between. There are tons of rural folk all over Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and even New York and into NW New Jersey.

I really don't think theres that much of a difference between us (possibly on the coasts though the BOS-NYC-PHIL-DC megalopolis and the LA-LV-SD-SF-PHO megalopolis) but in cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland and Indianapolis you are only about an hour or two away from "country". Heck even FarmAID had one of its annual events in Pittsburgh (2002 or so I think).

As far as what we think about the south I think that Yankee money built the south . . . starting with the US Military and Defense contractors in the 1960's (re: Atlanta and N. Alabama's "military loop" the historic Martin-Marietta and Huntsville facilities, Houston's Johnson Space Center, NASA in Central Florida, the HQ of SOCOM in Miami, Charlotte's reliance on Westinghouse's rich defense contracts in the 60's and Dallas's oil and tech firms reliance on govt. pork in the 60's and 70's).

Not that it was a bad thing, I think the policy of the Federal Govt. and thus their contractors (the companies that won the billion dollar contracts) to first settle the west and south and "get it up to par" with the NE was a good policy, as well as the defense structure that if Williamsport, PA was hit by a nuclear bomb 90% of the 1950 era defense, tech and materials industry in the nation would disappear (everything from Boston to NYC to Philly, DC, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and on to Chicago).

In the cold war the way you won was to spread out thus almost overnight LA went from "Double Dubuqe" (a reference to the insanely boring cookiecutter Iowa town) to a metropolis, and from the 1950s to the 1970s Atlanta, Dallas, Miami, Charlotte, Nashville all sleepy southern towns to major world destinations.

Just remember that's all Yankee money from 1958 you see when you look at Atlanta's or Dallas' skyline.

Yankee money.

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember that's all Yankee money from 1958 you see when you look at Atlanta's or Dallas' skyline. 

Yankee money.

;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is one of the silliest things that I have ever heard concerning cities in the South. CNN, Bell South, Coke a Cola, BofA, Home Depot, etc etc were never "yankee companies" as you put it. And since when does the IRS only collect taxes above the Mason Dixon line? Federal money is American money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been under the impression that in the south everyone is much more laid back, slow-paced and much more polite (nobody curses like they do up here) Am I right? Everyone I've met from the south that has moved to the north has said this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think of the South as rural I think of it as sprawl-land made up mostly of ticky tacky houses and strip malls. That is not to say that the north does not have this problem also. But, my experience with many southern cities (with a few exceptions) is that they are predominantly lacking in urbanity and quality of design and construction (Like Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Charlotte).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ticky tacky houses and strip malls

"They are all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same."

Thats what I thought of when I heard that. The little boxes on the hillside song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a Minnesotan -- I know that the South has many big cities and I generally think those as places of well educated, well informed people. I've visited most of them and have found them to be no different than any other city.

However, I think of those cities as islands surrounded by many, many good 'ol boy towns. My aunt (white) from Iowa moved to small town alabama and was shocked at the open display of discrimination and hostility shown toward blacks. Not one black fperson lived within the city limits of her town. The poverty I saw in the area was appalling --we have nothing like it in Minnesota (probably because you would freeze to death if you lived in houses like I saw in part of the South).

I also can't help but notice that the South has very few colleges and universities listed in at the top of most college lists. Based on the size of the area they should have more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leets, I want to address the thing you said about sprawl in the south. You're right, we do have it, but it's not as bad as people think; and no offense or anything, but I don't think people up north should be talking about sprawl anyway. The NE is home to the American Megalopolis. The cities up there SPRAWLED out so much that they grew together. Anyway, I don't think the south's sprawl is that bad. I've never seen any of those developments where you have hundreds of cookie cutter houses around here. Another good thing is that a lot of southern cities, especially Atlanta are experiencing a rebirth in their urban core. In the past few years the city of Atlanta's population started rising again after a 30 year downward trend and countless condos, apartment, and mixed use building are popping up. Atlanta's downtown is finally starting to have life again and I'm sure other cities are too. So, the south isn't as sprawling as you think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that is one of the silliest things that I have ever heard concerning cities in the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been under the impression that in the south everyone is much more laid back, slow-paced and much more polite (nobody curses like they do up here)  Am I right?  Everyone I've met from the south that has moved to the north has said this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the true south, the area thats still very rural, people are like that, but in the urban areas, people can be a little more uptight and more northern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PghUSA: The reason why the North was overrepresented in the 1950s and 60s in terms of companies and wealth is the lingering effects of the War of Northern Aggression in the South. It really took the South over 100 years to completely recover from the destruction of the Northern invasion, destruction and looting. As you may not know, the South was the richest part of the country in 1860 and this was only eclipsed by the North through force. Also, Southerners like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al, founded the country. And, Virginia was the richest and largest state at the time of the Revolution. Now, the South is returning to its rightful role as leader of the nation. So, I guess it is more accurate to say that the South built the nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the difference in the North and the South was back in the day the south was more of the agriculture and aristocratic and the north was more for industry. The north became so industrialized and wasn't as hot as the south so it had more people living there and had more control of the govt. hence the beginning of the civil war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  Now, the South is returning to its rightful role as leader of the nation.  So, I guess it is more accurate to say that the South built the nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:rofl::rofl::rofl: I want some of what your smoking. :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riverside, couldn't agree more with your conclusions. Again just stating the facts as I was taught in college. It is surprising you said that the south was wealthier then the north during the civil war . . . per capita or an 1850's style Forbes 400 listing? No doubt there were tons of very wealthy planters and traders, and your right everyone from Madison to Washington were "southerners". Part of the genesis of the term "yankee" though were the New England shipcaptains that were wealthy and maybe a bit arrogant and full of hubris coming into cities across the globe--the south included--and throwing their weight around, so wealth was not a stranger to the early NE and Mid-west.

I'd like to learn more about how the south was more wealthy then the north, even though in recent history it's a tad abstract. Although I believe you might be right in that there were more millionaires in the south, I think the early industrial revolution in the Northeast and Mid-west offered greater per capita wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PghUSA:  The reason why the North was overrepresented in the 1950s and 60s in terms of companies and wealth is the lingering effects of the War of Northern Aggression in the South.  It really took the South over 100 years to completely recover from the destruction of the Northern invasion, destruction and looting.  As you may not know, the South was the richest part of the country in 1860 and this was only eclipsed by the North through force.  Also, Southerners like Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et al, founded the country.  And, Virginia was the richest and largest state at the time of the Revolution.  Now, the South is returning to its rightful role as leader of the nation.  So, I guess it is more accurate to say that the South built the nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you figure that? Because there were a few rich landholders? Most, virtually all, banks and industry, were in the North, not to mention the south lacked a middle class. Besides it's silly to argue over this, the South will beat out the north, but it will be because of norhterners continually moving south, because of the weather. And the north had every right to invade, destruct and loot, when the economy is built on the backs of slaves, those responsible can pay the price. And give me some facts and figures proving Virginia was so rich, or any other state in the south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you figure that? Because there were a few rich landholders?
With just a few seconds of searching, I found this:

By the 1850s there were more millionaires in the plantations from Natchez, Mississippi, to New Orleans, Louisiana, than in all other areas of the nation combined. By 1860 the 12 richest counties in the nation were all located in the South. The Southern economy depended on slavery, and by 1860 the U.S. economy depended on the Southern cotton that accounted for almost 60 percent of the value of all the nation's exports.

SOURCE: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595...an_History.html

I will agree that the basis of the South's economy was agriculture, but this was not all of it. The South had cities, banks and industry also, although the North was admittedly farther along with industry. But, the basis of the country's economy in the 1860s was still agriculture and the South produced a very valuable crop - cotton. Now, this economic system was in part based on slavery, which was sanctioned by the US Constitution, the Bible and human history. I am not saying slavery was right, just that it was a normal condition for most of human history. Anyway, the fact of the matter is the South was richer than the North before the Civil War. This is undeniable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm trying to make sense of how northern money built the south and southern skylines. I can't speak for other cities as I am not as versed on the histories of other cities as I am with Atlanta but I will address some of your points.

In a way though there is some truth to the statement, although the south doesn't owe it's success to "yankee" money, it is a fact that it wouldn't be nearly as successful without it.  Also I never said they were "Yankee Companies" though one could legitamately say that (see below), I just said they wouldn't be as successful (skylines and such) without the transfer of wealth from the north in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

I don't understand this paragraph. This statement in itself would assume that southerners aren't consumers.

CNN was founded by a transplanted Ohioan, Ted Turner is a Buckeye that adopted Atlanta as his hometown.

Okay, yes Ted Turner was born in Cincinnati Ohio. As far as I know, he was not a billionaire when he came to Atlanta and founded CNN and Turner Broadcasting. That would mean that his success was made in the south. Per his own biography, he moved to Savannah Ga when he was nine years old.

See here:

Ted Turner

There goes the northern money theory for that company.

Moving right along......

BellSouth, though a very large and successful company in its own right was a spinoff of NYC based AT&T in 1985.

Again we assume that southerners didn't get this new invention called telephone until 1985 when Bellsouth was founded. :rolleyes: Why would you consider that the money paid by phone users in the south did not help further AT&T to become the successful company it once was. SouthernBell was there just like PacificBell and all the other subsideries of AT&T. If the south could not have handled it's own division (because we were once so dependent on northern money) then we would have been combine with the MidAtlantic region.

There goes the northern money theory for that company.

Moving right along......

Coca-Cola it is true was founded and grew in Atlanta but I do remember seeing World Almanacs from the 1960s and 1970s listing their HQ as New York City (let me know if I'm correct on that), one could make the argument that it was Dixie money that was making Wall-Street but I think what happened is like any great idea like Coke it gets taken over my people that know how to market it and sell it--ala Madison Avenue and Wall Street.  Coke is a true Southern creation, but being that its quantum leap in growth took place as a NY company can't be ignored.  I am glad though that both US Steel and CocaCola came "home" to their respective cities in the 70's. 

I have never ever heard of Coca~Cola's headquarters being located anywhere but Atlanta. If you have this information, you will have to show me because I just can't believe that. Even if this was true....and I doubt it but I could be wrong...Coke was founded in 1886. If it moved to anywhere else by 1960, that was a full 74+ years later. You mean to tell me you don't believe that Coke was already well on it's way until it moved it's headquarters to some northern city (which I doubt). Again show me what northern money helped Coca~Cola that wasn't also aided by western money, or midwestern money.

There goes the northern money theory for that company.

Moving right along......

Home Depot (as well as Wal-Mart) I agree are Southern Thoroughbreds, but again after cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Buffalo lose population to the sunbelt it is only expected that retailers based in the south would succeed. 

Okay, I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that Home Depot didn't become successful until northerners started moving south? Ummmm, in case you haven't realized, both Walmart and Home Depot are international retailers. Their success was not based on northerners propping them up. Depending on how old you are and how much about Home Improvement companies you know but Hechingers, Builder's Square and several other companies were very big in many parts of the mid Atlantic and north. Home Depot thrived because it trumped these other companies with a positive business model.

I'm still trying to figure out where the morthern money comes into play here. These are American companies not southern companies.

There goes the northern money theory for that company.

Moving right along......

As far as the skyline of Atlanta, names like Candler, Woodruff, Allen and Portman come to mind. They were the initial builders and visionaries of Atlanta. They were also southern. I can't believe that someone would base the success of Atlanta on "northern money."

Before someone thinks I'm all south this north that, my father is from Jersey, my mother is a New Yorker and my husband is from Pittsburgh. :whistling:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lady,

You have your facts right, its the conclusions that you are having some difficulty with. Being in Atlanta, you would know intimately that Coca-Cola was not the industrial wunderkid that it is today as recently as the early 1970's. It was a big company much like PNC Bank is a big company--but PNC Bank isn't a blue chipper right now by any means. So your conclusion that coke was "well on it's way" during its first 47 years doesn't reflect the transformation from regional and national player to global supernational it is in the last generation. I'll check those World Almanacs (I remember it well because it shocked even me that Coke didn't have Atlanta behind it's name), but if my memory is correct Wall Street and Madison Avenue had tons to do with making Coke, Coke and not 7-Up (surprisingly they were basically equals just a few generations ago, something sprouted at Coke, 7-Up remains its 1960's self).

My view on CNN and Turner is that the man was the company, without Ted CNN and TBS etc. would have never gotten started or prospered. He did make his fortune in Atlanta, but much like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs he was "the company", and the man has that feared "Yankee" blood in him.

BellSouth had many southerners in top leadership posts, and made lots of money in the south, no doubt. The fact is that it was a wholey owned subsidary of a Yankee company as late as 1985. If Mellon Financial had a skyscraper in Atlanta (as it has in Miami) with southern workers in it, it doesn't make it a "southern" company. True they are making money in the south but again it is the cities that are wooing Fortune 500 companies to them, I wouldn't ever think that a BA tower in Pittsburgh was "Pittsburgh money" sure they are making some cash in the region but the power and the wealth is centered in Charlotte, not Pittsburgh in that case.

As far as where "northern money" comes into play it is an undisputed fact that northern tech and defense firms started the southern building boom in the 50's and 60's mainly in response to the Pentagons fear that a nuclear blast in central PA would wipe out almost all industry along the Atlantic coast and Great Lakes. Again there's no Home Depot Blvd. or BA Blvd. in Pittsburgh, or Cleveland or Detroit, but I drove on Westinghouse Blvd. in Charlotte. There's that northern money again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, there a Westinghouse Blvd in Charlotte? So let me get this straight, in your mind there was only one clan of Westinghouse and they all settled up north. Are you in fact sure that this Westinghouse Blvd is named after the northern branch of Westinghouse? Can you show me with definitive evidence that Westinghouse Blvd in Charlotte is named after the northern Westinghouse and not old Abram Westinghouse who owned like 1000 acres and a convenience store in that part of town?

As far as Home Depot Blvd, there may not be one in Pittsburgh and there isn't one in Atlanta either. Fancy that......

In your first paragraph you mention Coca~Cola. First of all lets go to your intial claim. Northern money made the south and southern companies. Now you want to say how big they were at which point. Honey please.....you are moving the goal post. Either northern money made them or it didn't. Let's not change what you initially said. In your first post on this thread you made it out to south as if us poor southerners went begging to the northerners for money to start some of the south's premier companies and that's not true.

You said this

In a way though there is some truth to the statement, although the south doesn't owe it's success to "yankee" money, it is a fact that it wouldn't be nearly as successful without it.
Exactly what are you saying here? It would not be nearly as successful without it if not for handouts from the north. Can you NOT see how off base that sounds?

In another quote you say:

Aside from the humor of my comment, my only point was that in the 1950s and 1960s the Federal Government and the leading industries were faced with 2/3 of the county that was slightly behind the curve as well as the menancing threat of a Nuclear War and the possiblity that most of the nations infrastructure could be taken out with a hit in the Northeast or Industrial Mid-West. I think the pouring of funds into the south and desert west was long overdue, but there is really no question that the wealth in the nation prior to 1955 or 1960 was centered in the NE and industrial mid-west.

and this....

As far as where "northern money" comes into play it is an undisputed fact that northern tech and defense firms started the southern building boom in the 50's and 60's mainly in response to the Pentagons fear that a nuclear blast in central PA would wipe out almost all industry along the Atlantic coast and Great Lakes.

This was not northern money helping southerners hun. This was American money helping America's defense and infrastructure.

Okay.........why did I just type all that because the more engrossed I get into the discussion the more I sit here saying "what in the world am I disputing? He initially said that northern money made southern cities. I have proved that not to be the case so why keep yapping about it."

The whole economic premise of this discussion is not making sense. You are acting like the north has been helping the south grow up until as late as the 80's and that ideal is preposterous. First, we are all Americans....if any American company decided to move or have a presence in the south it had nothing to do with sending money here from the north. It was because they saw the markets here. They wanted the money that was already here.

As far as Bellsouth and AT&T, I don't even understand what you are trying to project here. AT&T was broken into regional carriers because of anti-monopoly laws passed by the federal government. Shall I say that again......federal government....it's not as it the northern AT&T said "those poor southerners, let us send some money down there to start a company because they really need some corporate presence there." This was not northern money given to southern bumpkins as your intial post makes it seem. There is not some NAFTA type law that encourages northern based or northern started companies to do business in the south.

They came here for money....not to bring money.

This was the quote that topped it off for me:

BellSouth had many southerners in top leadership posts, and made lots of money in the south, no doubt. The fact is that it was a wholey owned subsidary of a Yankee company as late as 1985. If Mellon Financial had a skyscraper in Atlanta (as it has in Miami) with southern workers in it, it doesn't make it a "southern" company. True they are making money in the south but again it is the cities that are wooing Fortune 500 companies to them, I wouldn't ever think that a BA tower in Pittsburgh was "Pittsburgh money" sure they are making some cash in the region but the power and the wealth is centered in Charlotte, not Pittsburgh in that case.

No one is alleging that any northern company is southern. You are simply being silly here.

You have not shown where northern money has built the south. You are moving the goal post now and talking about northern companies with regional headquarters in the south and because they have southern workers that does not make them southern companies. Ummmmmmm, you think?

Show this forum where northern money made the south the place it is today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

p.s.- Let me stress this, I am taking nothing from the north. The north gave me most of my relatives and my husband. There are many great things about the north. Pittsburgh is a lovely city....my daddy worked and retired from a Pittsburgh based company. He was either there or Delaware often for business.....personally I can look fondly on Pittsburgh but I will not buy that northern money made the south, southern skylines or southern companies. Sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leets, I want to address the thing you said about sprawl in the south. You're right, we do have it, but it's not as bad as people think; and no offense or anything, but I don't think people up north should be talking about sprawl anyway. The NE is home to the American Megalopolis. The cities up there SPRAWLED out so much that they grew together. Anyway, I don't think the south's sprawl is that bad. I've never seen any of those developments where you have hundreds of cookie cutter houses around here. Another good thing is that  a lot of southern cities, especially Atlanta are experiencing a rebirth in their urban core. In the past few years the city of Atlanta's population started rising again after a 30 year downward trend and countless condos, apartment, and mixed use building are popping up. Atlanta's downtown is finally starting to have life again and I'm sure other cities are too. So, the south isn't as sprawling as you think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I noted the North does have a sprawl problem but I was asked my perception of the south and that is what it is. The thing is that Northern cities are not predominantly sprawly and are many south and south west cities. Atlanta is know to have some of theee worst of not the actual worst sprawl in the country.

Our method of development in today's America is geared toward sprawl so it is not surprising that the newer cities of the south will be mostly sprawl like as is with the newer suburban areas of northern cities.

People in the south always want to deny that sprawl is out of control but the real urban cities are in the north and on the west coast

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My children why do we do this, do you ever wonder how we might look to people on the outside, the whole " do these people have lives" crowd. Who cares! The southern states are now growing and thriving due to, better business practices, and lower taxes. The lasses faire economic policies of the south have built up a better corporate culture, and so the over taxed over regulated companies that either exist, or might have started up in the northern states, are moving south where they can actually be businesses. Instead of focusing on how great and rich the south was 150 years ago focus on the NOW. The Truth is almost all of the truly powerhouse states in terms of wealth are in the north. New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey. Even the industrial Great Lake States, Illinois, Michigan(which is imploding under it's own tax and welfare policies), PA, Wisconsin. All of these states have enormous Gross State Products, and even on a per-capita basis make more money. There is not one state in the south where the percapita income is higher. Let me give a shout out to my hoe's in Minnesota, where the Per-Capita Income is among the highest in the nation. YOu want numbers I'll give you numbers, proof is in the pudding and you cant deny that. Again I say who cares, why do we waste everyones time having these regional pissing contests, the truth is many of the northern states are about to Buckle as the "brain drain" continues on their economies. They will be left with the Bufords, and Jebadiahs, that have been laid off from their jobs on the line at the factories.

What really cracks me up is how all of you function as if there is nothing after the Mississippi River. Everyone here, so smart with all of the facts you all possess forget that in about 20 years all of you will be bowing to the folks in Phoenix, Vegas, Seattle and LA as the center of population in this country shifts west, NOT south.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.