urbanSTL

Last year I sat on a plane to STL next to a lady who never heard of the Arch, after I showed her a photo she said she was going to try to go see it

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2023

Last year I sat on a plane to STL next to a lady who never heard of the Arch, after I showed her a photo she said she was going to try to go see it

Most Americans are very ignorant to geography. Outside the largest metro areas, most have very little knowledge of other regions. There are literally metros with millions of people like St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, etc. that the average American knows virtually nothing about. I'd actually say St. Louis is actually pretty well known compared to our peers to be honest. The Arch, the Cardinals, Budweiser, certain artists like Nelly have put St. Louis on the map or else we'd have Kansas City relevancy.

goat314 wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2023

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Nov 23, 2023

Last year I sat on a plane to STL next to a lady who never heard of the Arch, after I showed her a photo she said she was going to try to go see it

... or else we'd have Kansas City relevancy.

Makes me wonder how much $$$ the holy trinity of Kelce-Swift-Mahomes is worth to the KC area in publicity.  It seems recently, that I can't avoid KC and the Chiefs watching any nationally televised sports or entertainment event including non-stop State Farm ads.

Foreigners often know about the Mississippi River, Jazz, and Route 66, so relating StL to that helps.

^I've learned Mark Twain is a good reference point for St. Louis abroad. 

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2023

The problem in that being that a disturbing amount of Americans don't know what states are where either.

I've had far too many conversations with people in Philly who, in this order: Tell me I'm from the south, realize that that Missouri is not Mississippi, and then continue to argue that I am in fact from the south.

aprice wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2023

The problem in that being that a disturbing amount of Americans don't know what states are where either.

I've had far too many conversations with people in Philly who, in this order: Tell me I'm from the south, realize that that Missouri is not Mississippi, and then continue to argue that I am in fact from the south.

People from Chicago will try to argue that St. Louis is the South if you let them, so that doesn't suprise me at all. Many people that have never been to St. Louis think of it as the equivalent of Jackson, MS. I've literally had people be shocked that St. Louis was as urban and built up as it is on arrival. In their mind, St. Louis brings up visions of a city more akin to Nashville, Oklahoma City, or Birmingham than say Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Baltimore. 

Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with Immigration in St Louis today.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

Our national narrative on slavery being a strictly southern institution is starting to be debunked. Slavery was an American institution. I went to NYC last year and visited Wall St. where they now have signage acknowledging that it was one of America's first slave markets and humans were literally one of the first commodities on the stock market. New Jersey was also a big slave state with many historical sites now acknowledging this. Much of the anti-slavery movement in the north was a response to the  mass migrations of European immigrants having to compete with slave labor in Northern cities. Remember it was the German immigrants in St. Louis that actually kept Missouri out of the confederacy and pushed for abolition. Blacks in the North were viewed as cheap labor, similar to how Latin American immigrants are today and many poor whites resented that.

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

This makes no sense and has nothing to do with Immigration in St Louis today.

It makes perfect sense and was a direct response to Goat314’s post.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

goat314 wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

Our national narrative on slavery being a strictly southern institution is starting to be debunked. Slavery was an American institution. I went to NYC last year and visited Wall St. where they now have signage acknowledging that it was one of America's first slave markets and humans were literally one of the first commodities on the stock market. New Jersey was also a big slave state with many historical sites now acknowledging this. Much of the anti-slavery movement in the north was a response to the  mass migrations of European immigrants having to compete with slave labor in Northern cities. Remember it was the German immigrants in St. Louis that actually kept Missouri out of the confederacy and pushed for abolition. Blacks in the North were viewed as cheap labor, similar to how Latin American immigrants are today and many poor whites resented that.

The “southern-ness” of a place is inextricably connected to its position leading up to and during the civil war. Missouri literally waged war in on and in Kansas in the name of expanding slavery. Our secessionist government nearly succeeded in formally seceding if not for being run out of the state. Missouri was very much a “border state” during the war.

And although you are correct that Slavery existed in the northern states comprising a portion of the original 13 colonies, slavery was notably prohibited from day 1 in the areas comprising the Northwest Territory. That’s 1787.

Each of these facts suggest Missouri is more “southern” than, say, Illinois. Again, there’s no getting around it.

While each of the events above that you mentioned are historically accurate, you’re just making up a definition for what it means for a place to be culturally Southern today. St Louis is no more Southern than basically all of Illinois outside of Chicago. No one who is moderately aware of St Louis in this country would argue it’s even partially a Southern city and you would be laughed at if you tried to make that case to someone who lives in the South.

And yes Texas and VA are culturally Southern places today.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 01, 2023

goat314 wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

Missouri had slaves up until Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation so I think you have to acknowledge that Missouri and by extension St Louis is fairly “southern”. I certainly think StL is more midwestern than southern, but the slavery thing is pretty southern - can’t get around it.

I love to hear people argue that Texas or VA isn’t the South. If your state had slaves until the very last moment AND formally seceded, you are forever barred from arguing such state is not the South.

Our national narrative on slavery being a strictly southern institution is starting to be debunked. Slavery was an American institution. I went to NYC last year and visited Wall St. where they now have signage acknowledging that it was one of America's first slave markets and humans were literally one of the first commodities on the stock market. New Jersey was also a big slave state with many historical sites now acknowledging this. Much of the anti-slavery movement in the north was a response to the  mass migrations of European immigrants having to compete with slave labor in Northern cities. Remember it was the German immigrants in St. Louis that actually kept Missouri out of the confederacy and pushed for abolition. Blacks in the North were viewed as cheap labor, similar to how Latin American immigrants are today and many poor whites resented that.

The “southern-ness” of a place is inextricably connected to its position leading up to and during the civil war. Missouri literally waged war in on and in Kansas in the name of expanding slavery. Our secessionist government nearly succeeded in formally seceding if not for being run out of the state. Missouri was very much a “border state” during the war.

And although you are correct that Slavery existed in the northern states comprising a portion of the original 13 colonies, slavery was notably prohibited from day 1 in the areas comprising the Northwest Territory. That’s 1787.

Each of these facts suggest Missouri is more “southern” than, say, Illinois. Again, there’s no getting around it.

Slave leasing was very common in Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin. That's why the whole Dred Scott debacle started. He went to a "free state" and thought his rights should have been respected. He found out otherwise. The Northwest Territory also was known for having more Sundown towns than the South. There was literally no place in America where black people's rights were respected during the years leading up to the Civil War and the 100 years following it. Random mob violence against black people was common in Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia. In fact, America's worst race riots have all occurred above the Mason Dixon line.

Here's an interesting article about the history of slavery in Illinois. We've literally be taught semi truths about slavery in America to push narratives.

https://www.propublica.org/article/slav ... at-history

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Dec 01, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

goat314 wrote: ↑

Nov 30, 2023

Our national narrative on slavery being a strictly southern institution is starting to be debunked. Slavery was an American institution. I went to NYC last year and visited Wall St. where they now have signage acknowledging that it was one of America's first slave markets and humans were literally one of the first commodities on the stock market. New Jersey was also a big slave state with many historical sites now acknowledging this. Much of the anti-slavery movement in the north was a response to the  mass migrations of European immigrants having to compete with slave labor in Northern cities. Remember it was the German immigrants in St. Louis that actually kept Missouri out of the confederacy and pushed for abolition. Blacks in the North were viewed as cheap labor, similar to how Latin American immigrants are today and many poor whites resented that.

The “southern-ness” of a place is inextricably connected to its position leading up to and during the civil war. Missouri literally waged war in on and in Kansas in the name of expanding slavery. Our secessionist government nearly succeeded in formally seceding if not for being run out of the state. Missouri was very much a “border state” during the war.

And although you are correct that Slavery existed in the northern states comprising a portion of the original 13 colonies, slavery was notably prohibited from day 1 in the areas comprising the Northwest Territory. That’s 1787.

Each of these facts suggest Missouri is more “southern” than, say, Illinois. Again, there’s no getting around it.

While each of the events above that you mentioned are historically accurate, you’re just making up a definition for what it means for a place to be culturally Southern today. St Louis is no more Southern than basically all of Illinois outside of Chicago. No one who is moderately aware of St Louis in this country would argue it’s even partially a Southern city and you would be laughed at if you tried to make that case to someone who lives in the South.

And yes Texas and VA are culturally Southern places today.

1. All definitions are “made up”.

2. Your comment comparing StL to “all of Illinois outside of Chicago” is absurd. You should make friends with one black person and then run this theory by them lol.

3. I’m not going to argue with you about what hypothetical people your mind has conjured would think about St Louis’s southern-ness.

St. Louis schools were not integrated until Brown, another fact that suggests our southern-ness is stronger than, say, Des Moines.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Dec 01, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: The “southern-ness” of a place is inextricably connected to its position leading up to and during the civil war. Missouri literally waged war in on and in Kansas in the name of expanding slavery. Our secessionist government nearly succeeded in formally seceding if not for being run out of the state. Missouri was very much a “border state” during the war.

And although you are correct that Slavery existed in the northern states comprising a portion of the original 13 colonies, slavery was notably prohibited from day 1 in the areas comprising the Northwest Territory. That’s 1787.

Each of these facts suggest Missouri is more “southern” than, say, Illinois. Again, there’s no getting around it.

While each of the events above that you mentioned are historically accurate, you’re just making up a definition for what it means for a place to be culturally Southern today. St Louis is no more Southern than basically all of Illinois outside of Chicago. No one who is moderately aware of St Louis in this country would argue it’s even partially a Southern city and you would be laughed at if you tried to make that case to someone who lives in the South.

And yes Texas and VA are culturally Southern places today.

1. All definitions are “made up”.

2. Your comment comparing StL to “all of Illinois outside of Chicago” is absurd. You should make friends with one black person and then run this theory by them lol.

3. I’m not going to argue with you about what hypothetical people your mind has conjured would think about St Louis’s southern-ness.

St. Louis schools were not integrated until Brown, another fact that suggests our southern-ness is stronger than, say, Des Moines.

There are plenty of Northern cities whose schools weren’t integrated until the same time or after St Louis’s. See Boston.

JaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑

Dec 01, 2023

Debaliviere91 wrote: ↑

Dec 01, 2023

JaneJacobsGhost wrote:
The “southern-ness” of a place is inextricably connected to its position leading up to and during the civil war. Missouri literally waged war in on and in Kansas in the name of expanding slavery. Our secessionist government nearly succeeded in formally seceding if not for being run out of the state. Missouri was very much a “border state” during the war.

And although you are correct that Slavery existed in the northern states comprising a portion of the original 13 colonies, slavery was notably prohibited from day 1 in the areas comprising the Northwest Territory. That’s 1787.

Each of these facts suggest Missouri is more “southern” than, say, Illinois. Again, there’s no getting around it.

While each of the events above that you mentioned are historically accurate, you’re just making up a definition for what it means for a place to be culturally Southern today. St Louis is no more Southern than basically all of Illinois outside of Chicago. No one who is moderately aware of St Louis in this country would argue it’s even partially a Southern city and you would be laughed at if you tried to make that case to someone who lives in the South.

And yes Texas and VA are culturally Southern places today.

1. All definitions are “made up”.

2. Your comment comparing StL to “all of Illinois outside of Chicago” is absurd. You should make friends with one black person and then run this theory by them lol.

3. I’m not going to argue with you about what hypothetical people your mind has conjured would think about St Louis’s southern-ness.

St. Louis schools were not integrated until Brown, another fact that suggests our southern-ness is stronger than, say, Des Moines.

Plenty of Black people have written and talked about Illinois being the "Mississippi of the North" and Chicago specifically being "Mississippi with Skyscrapers". The history of Black people in Illinois was not a cakewalk. Also, I know plenty of Black people leaving the north and heading south because the racial politics are actually not as bad in the large Southern metros, which is one reason I disagree with St. Louis being a true Southern city. It seems most of the true Southern metros have worked hard to fight against the racist image and policies, St. Louis and most other northern cities have not and continue to promote the gentrification and ghettotization of the black community. They just say, "Well atleast we're not the South in 1960" and then continue to stick their heads into the sand.