Born in Michigan, raised in Illinois, living in Iowa.
Kansas and Nebraska are iffy in my mind, but if the residents consider themselves Midwestern, I would include them.
The Dakotas and Oklahoma? No way Jose.
Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota are definitely Midwest. Missouri is probably the toughest call. I would include it, but it has a pretty heavy southern influence.
Not that it’s the only metric but, interestingly, the eight states I picked – Minnesota, Iowa, IL, IN, OH, WI, MI, MO – are all “Blue” or swing states with the exception of Indiana (and MO is turning red but has traditionally been more of a swing). The ones I’d call Plains States are solid red when it comes to presidential voting. There certainly seems to be some shift in mindset between the two populations.
I’m not sure what that means. Either way, pick any surburb of Kansas City and compare it to any suburb of Indianapolis, Chicago, Columbus, Milwaukee, etc. You’re not going to be able to show me any significant difference in the population apart from regional accent. People who visit me in Indy from KC are amazed at how nearly identical the two cities are, and there are even more similarities between Columbus and Kansas City, IMO.
I’ve lived in Kansas for ten years (and in Chicago years ago). I wavered on whether to include Kansas as “Midwest.” (If I did, I’d have to include Nebraska, too, and probably the Dakotas). It’s true that anyone who lives anywhere near the Kansas Cities – up to an including Topeka, KS – will say they’re from the Midwest. West of Tooeka, though, is Great Plains all the way, with more of a Western feel. I’m not sure what Wichita folks would say – I’m guessing they don’t generally consider themselves Midwesterners (there’s a bit of an Oklahoma/North Texas vibe down there), but if I’m wrong, I’d change my vote from “not including Kansas in the Midwest” to “yes, include it.”
I’ve spent my life in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois and Kansas.
I’d include part of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma in the Midwest.
I’d call the Dakotas part of the “west”, or “great American west,” or something. The same group as Wyoming and Montana.
Part of Ohio and all of Kentucky, Arkansas and West Virginia are Appalachian/Southern.
Much of Ohio and all of Pennsylvania is Rust Belt.
Edited to add: the five years I spent in Kansas were in Wichita. I consider it Midwestern, in answer to the post above this one, though I wouldn’t hesitate to include it and Oklahoma in “the great plains” also. It’s nebulous, like Ohio.
I was born in the West (California), grew up in the Northeast (Massachusetts), lived for 13 years in the Midwest (Illinois) and for the last 14 in the South (Tennessee).
My definition for the Midwest includes Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.
I included Missouri too, although it is borderline. St. Louis is a Midwestern city, but most of the state is more Southern. Kansas City is in the Great Plains which includes Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas.
Pennsylvania is in interesting case - Pittsburgh is a Midwest city, but everything east of it is not, so I did not include the state.
If I were drawing on outline of Midwestern cities it would start at Pittsburgh, then go to Columbus, to Cincinnati, to Evansville IN (leaving Louisville in the South), to St. Louis, then Des Moines, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Duluth, Sault Ste. Marie, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh.
No brainers:
Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa.
Barely Qualify:
North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri
Too Far East:
Pennsylvania, West Virginia
Too Far West:
Colorado, Montana, Wyoming
Too Far South:
Oklahoma, Arkansas
Texas is South, if for no other reason, alligators in Houston. As far as I’m concerned, if you have indigenous gators, it’s the South. Missouri is mixed up. Kansas City is as Midwestern a place as anywhere, but much of the rest of the state, especially along the Mississippi River, the Ozarks, and really, anything south of Hannibal is culturally Southern. I saw more Confederate flags in Missouri than anywhere else, per capita.
BTW, I’m from Missouri. Please pronounce it properly: Mi-zu-rah. You wouldn’t say Ar-Kan-zas.
Glad you stopped in. What’s with the U of Missouri calling itself “Mizzou”? What’s up with that? There aren’t any z’s in the name of your state.
I agree, except that I gave Pennsylvania the benefit of the doubt - it’s a “tweener” state; you can make a case for, say, Pittsburgh to be in the “midwest” but not so much for Philadelphia. I consider Kansas a “plains” state more than a “midwestern” one.
Pretty much the only time I have heard Colorado and Wyoming considered “midwest” states was back when the NCAA basketball tournament’s four regions were called west, midwest, mideast, and east, roughly corresponding to the four continental time zones.
To each his/her own, but I personally draw a distinction between the Midwest and the Great Plains. The Dakotas, Nebraska, and Kansas are Plains states.
The Midwest states are, IMHO, the triangle with Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio at the corners. East of the Plains, north of the Ohio, west of the Appalachians, and south of the Great Lakes and Canada.
What interests me about the poll results so far is that a number of people include Kansas and Nebraska in the Midwest, but exclude the Dakotas. I’m not sure how you do that.
I think that’s supposed to be a joke? (Polite clap). Heh heh.
Yeah, but Kansas City is on the very eastern edge of Kansas (not to mention most of Kansas City is in Missouri).
I spent a lot of time in Arkansas City growing up. Not sure I ever heard anyone there talk about Kansas as a midwestern state.
Geographically, Kansas is very different from Indiana. They may both be pretty flat, but Kansas is quite arid, and Indiana is not. Kansas roasts in the summer and freezes in the winter; there’s just nothing, not even trees, to stop the wind coming down from the Arctic in winter, and nothing to stop the heat coming up from the deserts to the south in summer. Indianapolis is comparatively quite temperate.
You could do the same with suburbs almost anywhere in the US in cities with similar climates. Not convincing at all.
And a quarter of the entire state of Kansas lives in the surrounding area (Johnson and Wyandotte counties). If you want to talk geography, go right ahead - Kansas is a Great Plains state, because 90% of its land mass is exactly that. Demographically, you ignore a significant population that describes itself as Midwestern.
Tell me more about how we label similar populations in similar climates in similar neighborhoods. Maybe give them all similar labels? Or maybe even just pay attention to how they self-label themselves, and notice a pattern…
Both the Great Lakes and Great Plains states are Midwestern.
Oklahoma is a puzzler
As I type this, with 86 votes in, I am posting from the only state which is absolutely, positively 100% midwestern. Go Illinois!
I agree with this. I’ve got family in SD, and they consider themselves Midwestern.
True, if longitude were the only criterion. But it’s not; otherwise, Arkansas (say) would be in for sure.
I’d say it’s because the Dakotas, with somewhat more severe weather and no big cities with sprawling suburbs, feel just a little more “pure Great Plains” than Kansas or Nebraska. Midwestern-ness requires that population density not be TOO low. When it gets below a certain level, you’re either in the Rocky Mountains, or the Desert Southwest, or the Great White North. Perhaps only the southeast corner of South Dakota really feels “Midwestern.”
Of course, North Dakota simply doesn’t exist. 