When New England was settled by English colonists, they also settled in the Long Island/NYC area.

The dutch, however, claimed this area as their own and had separate settlements in the New York State area, but not in Long Island or what is now NYC.

The people of Long Island spoke English, traded and mingled with the english settlements both north and south of them.

When England and Holland began bickering and fighting, the fight spread to the New World and the Dutch colonies were surrended by the Netherlands to England. This included New York City. This occurred in 1650-80 or somewhere around then...

So, keeping this and the geographic proximity of New York City to the rest of New England, would you say it is a stretch to call New York City a part of New England?

Discuss.

Pretty much sums it up. You have never been to both places for an extended period of time if you think they are pretty much identical.

there is nothing to discuss. you got owned for geographical ignorance so you have to invent a new definition for "New England" to cover your own rear-- which exacerbated your foolishness.

I got "owned" for knowing more about history than the average person? Or perhaps I was "owned" for knowing the geographical proximity of New York to what you consider New England. Perhaps I was owned for stating that while not technically a part of New England, its geographical proximity, history, and culture make it a defacto part of New England...

Honestly, milton, this is your weakest effort to date. Rolly, Wolfenstein, and yourself are just making asses out of yourselves by trying to paint the city of New York as "completely different" from the Boston area...

That's all well and good Dak, but New England is a commonly accepted geographical term with a specific meaning. So unless you can show that your definition of New England is in common use (or is even recognized by anyone other than yourself) then you are just making things up to cover your own ass.

It would be like arguing that Venezuela is part of North America because it north of the equator. You may have a point, but if nobody else sees it that way you are wrong. You cannot argue what a certain geographical region should be called. It is what it is. So unless you have some evidence of others accepting your definition of New England, it is just something you made up to cover your ass.

In the context of the conversation, it made perfect sense. I was obviously not referring to the geographical region but rather the cultural region...

so basically you invented a new definition suitable for your failed argument. gg.

Another redefinition of what constitutes New England? First it was



Then it was



Somehow ignoring the FACT that New York has NOT been considered a part of New England in any way whatsoever for three centuries...now it's the fact that we same the same culture (although it's not identical). This is truly pathetic. You cannot arbitrarily redefine areas that have had clear borders for centuries with a bunch of irrelevant criteria. This is especially true when 299,999,998 million Americans believe that New England consists of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Rhode Island, and the only two people saying otherwise are Dakyron and Dragonspirit, two ignorant Southwesterners who apparently have no idea about geography. I suppose Dakyron isn't a surprise since Arizona keeps getting ranked near the bottom in quality of education...Dragonspirit I guess was just skipping out of class.

So then show us some evidence that someone other than you recognizes this "cultural region" known as New England that include New York.

No. I dont need someone else saying it. It is freaking obvious.

Lets look historically.

Same language.
Same physical geography.
Colonized by settlers from same country at the same time.

Lets look at it today.

Same culture.
Same physical geography
Speaks same language.
Same demographics

LOL!
"NYC is New England because people in NYC speak the same language as those living in the New England region."

good stuff.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Apr 24 2006, 11:09 PM

You seemed to have missed the rest of my comment... how unusual...

In all fairness, both cities have terrible-sounding accents equivalent to nails scratching on a chalkboard. I'd rather listen to the squealing of a dental drill.

This post has been edited by libvertaruan: Apr 24 2006, 11:30 PM

That isn't how it works. If it were then all geographical regions would be open to debate. For example, I say Venezuela is part of North America. After all it is north of the equator, so how could it not be part of North America. Never mind the fact that maps have called it part of South America for hundreds of years, or that every other person accepts it as part of South America.

Face it, when it comes to debating what is New England we are simply going by what the accepted meaning of the word is. That is what New England is. It is defined by common use, not debate. It is not really a debatable issue. You can say it should be part of New England because of similarities or whatever, but face facts. New England is well defined and it doesn't include New York.

(IMG:http://www.hooverfence.com/garden-supplies/img/shovel-s700.jpg)

Same physical geography would take in a huge area that should be defined as "New England."

Same settlers at the same time is rather flawed.
Firstly, it ignores the rather important dutch impact on New York. While the eastern end of Long Island was settled primarily by the English, what is now New York City and the Hudson Valley were all firmly Dutch- New Amsterdam becoming NYC, Fort Orange becoming Albany. The Dutch bought manhattan for $24, Peter Stuyvesant and all those fun bits of American history that you seem to be rather unaware of.

Hell, the important New York families were dutch until well into the 19th century and the Hudson valley had a dutch imposed feudal type system of landownership(patroons, the guys were called) for a bit longer. Why do you think the first New Yorker elected President had a dutch name? Not to meintion that pair of Roosevelts...

Also, I'm sure you're going to claim that the Dutch didnt have any long-term impact on New York or American culture. Dutch folkculture is rather obvious in New York. For instance, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow-one of those quintiscential New York tales- is borrowed for the Dutch. More broadly, the Dutch brought one of their odd little folk figures to America- Sinterklaas. Brits, oddly enough didnt have him. But last I checked I cant buy a can of Coke from November to January without Santa Claus smiling at me from it.

Claiming english settlers are enough ignores the variation between different sorts of English settlers. By that logic Virginia is part of New England because the colonists in both places were english speaking.

New England, by and large settled by Puritans. New York, not so much. This leads not only to different distributions of religious groups(New York has had legal religious toleration since the first settlement on Governor's Island- New England, not so much) but to differences in local laws and customs. New England has a distinct legacy of local government and town councils that one does not find in New York.

New York City also develops differently than other New England cities. While we are a port city we were primarily a commercial port- whaling and fishing are never as important for NYC as they are for Boston, Salem, Nantucket or any of the other prominent New England port cities.

New York, especially New York City, function within the larger American political and economic scene rather differently than New England and its closest equivalent, Boston.

As for language, the accents are distinct. While people from sufficently far north all sort of sound alike, the populations along the seaboard and the cities especially speak in rather different ways. But if English is all we need then New England extends from the Artic Circle to the Rio Grande, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And really, since the settlers came from the same place we would be remiss to not include Australia and New Zealand in the area as well- considering their common cultural and ethnic origins.




Pretty much the opposite. For instance, in your opening post you claim that the Dutch didnt have any settlements in what is now New York City. That rather ignores the fact that the capital of the New Netherlands, New Amsterdam, was located on the island of Manhattan and when captured by the English was renamed....wait for it... New York City.

This post has been edited by mhallex: Apr 25 2006, 05:58 AM

Well... Any response Dakyron? One of you is wrong here.

Oh my God I didn't even see that. Hilarious!

Good money says its not the New Yorker...

New Amsterdam had very few Dutch settlers in it, it was more or less a melting pot of nationalites, including English settlers... Ive heard a boston accent and a new york accent and you all sound the same to me... Im sure living in New York you can tell the difference, but the rest of us just think of it as an east coast accent...

Regardless though... Boston and New York are close enough geographically, politically, linguistically, and culturally that someone who lives 2,000 miles away can be forgiven for thinking of them as the same region.

visits to U-P are worthwhile as long as daky is around. he will go to great length to make arguments but his little brain, try as it might, just can't handle anything above 7th grade geography. this resulted in hilarious exhibition of human desperation. i mean daky could have ended his embarassment in the other thread, but he actually went further and created a new one to highlight his ignorance. good stuff.

This post has been edited by miltonfriedman: Apr 26 2006, 01:56 AM

Not really. While it was very cosmopolitian it was primarily dutch in nature.


Then you've just got a rather terrible ear.



Except for the different geography, different politics(except to the extent that cities tend to vote democratic) different accent and different local culture(unless you mean they're both American cities.)



The dignified thing to do would be to admit fault on this one. You're wrong-about the accents, about the local cultures and woefully wrong about the history. Everyone who has posted thus far has disagreed with you, as do geographers and the federal government. You don't gain anything from contiuning the argument- it won't change the facts and it makes you look foolish.

I realize that admitting you're wrong to other people on the internet is tough but its a sign of maturity that you're able to recognize your mistakes and grow from them.

(Besides which, this goes on longer and this thread just becomes a place to flame you and mock you. And none of the mods like cleaning up after that.)

This post has been edited by mhallex: Apr 25 2006, 07:57 PM

Hmm...

yes...

An assholish transvestite who defines its life via the movie "Pirates", a rich-kid turned drug-addicted bum from manhattan, and a bitter-at-the-world jr high economics professor have disagreed with me...

Surely, I must be wrong...

Middle class from Queens, thank you.

And you forgot the federal government and you know, uhm, the entire cartography/geography establishment.

Plus history and custom.

So yeah, you must be wrong.

I do no such thing. I merely reference it.

Why am I being ignored?

Fixed

Yay!

Now, that some Jewish (read "smart") guy backed the New York City not in New England camp your cause is lost.

highschools have professors? i'll ignore this minor "daky" though as the major whupping has provided us enough hilarity already.

what "daky" will dakyron pull out next?

Dak-You lose.